BV 

811 

1^18 




^ffrr/^mi.\!>m, 



•'^nnr^r^ryr^r.X'^'yrf^fM^f, 






m^ 



vvWA^^ .'VM«'^»se?*'*''^?*« 



^AA- AA^^t.A^->;^>^^ 






^^r\A^.ii 



^•AaA''J,U'a' 






'WViA, 



>■■ A A ^-> A /^ 



^I^Ar\i^f\r\f^i 



'AA/^OArto. 






'^2©<^^ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 




1^% 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



^r^M^ 



,A/^/1/^^/^Aa, 



>mf^ 



««««fl^^^;:': 



aAaa. 






aAA<s^.«:o:^'"-''^^'^fiAa^ 






eOfl^^o^: 



''^'^A^^/^/^Ai^AM/^AAA 



/^aAO's^/^ 



m'^^:^M, 









i/^8;5f^^'^^'^:A;^.fi|A 






i^^^n^iinTWi'^^"^^^'^^^^ 



^^^.. 



v^/^AaWW#i^^^^^'^^^^^^^ 



^AA AAU^rNA^'^'^A 



A^^WOA'^Wi^. 



lAA^A^' 



aaa/^A^Aa 



lie t^e2^^AA,AA^QA/5A., • : :.r^AA/i0yy^H 



X' .'J 'W r^ ^A A' / ^ Mn n A A .■ C O O rN ^ 









'■'^mm^f^^fim, 



iA'.AAAA/^,^,/?^AAA«.*..AAAf^A/^M' 



^^/^AA, 



W/i* 






^^^^^^^^^^^.r^. 






;vys^-AA, 



A^AAaAa/^>a:^: 



A/^^AA^nA/^^' ''.A^AAM/^W'AWAAAo-^.n■^:A, 



AA^AA'A>t' 



AAA/^n^^-. 



AaA,A/> 



:,;^^^Ann/^^o 



;AAr\r\^: 






An Art 






mmm^ 



^^^^mmmmm 






f\f\^fA^f^^f\r,f\f\f^Ar^r.' 



^AIA^AaJ^/^^^^^ 






:r':z:!::^^^^«a??» 



■^fi^^*^A^;^/^^^^^'^O^00 









NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE 



OF THE 



MODE OF BAPTISM 



By Eev. ISAAC E. HEATOJS" 

Fkemont, Nebraska. 



Second Edition, Enlargedt^^^-^n; 




SiKGLE Copies, Thirty Cents: Three Dollars Per Dozen. 
For Sale by the Author; Sent by Mail. 



FREMONT, NEB.: 

FBEMONT TRIBUNE BOOK AND JOB PRINT, 

1§78. 



X 




^ 



\1 






Entkkkd. according to Act of Congress, iu tke year 1875, by 
ISAAC E. HEATON, ^~~ 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE 

<^^ THE 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

We respectfully ask the attention of onr readers to a new branch 
of evidence respecting this perplexing question. Allusions to it 
have recently been made, but the decisive nature of the evidence is 
usually overlooked. In this second and enlarged edition, v^^e pro- 
pose to present this evidence in its relations to other branches of 
evidence previously known. If the following statements and reason- 
ings are true they finally decide both the Mode and the Subjects of 
Baptism. If not, it is easy to point out the errors. We endeav^or 
to use great plainness of speech. We claim no exemption from the 
eiTors and frailties of humanity. But we have personally made care- 
ful and repeated investigations of these facts, especially so far as this 
Greek Idiom is involved. We cannot claim the personal reading of 
all these classic examples of haptizo. We seek to present them in 
the most clear and univocal manner. We regret this separation, as 
we so nearly agree with our Baptist brethren. We respect their 
conscientious desire to practice baptism in the scriptural mode. In 
numerous cases a flourishing church might easily be self sustaining 
by uniting the Congregational and Baptist churches. So much 
might be saved for christian effort where it is urgently needed. A 
great stumbling block before the irreligious would be removed. If 
sorrow can enter Heaven, one occasion for it may be this: We find 
that we perseveringly opposed that which proves to be the truth of 
God. Yet, on one side or the other, w^e are destined to such disap- 
pointment. The efiectual method, and probably the only, method, 
of uniting these tw^o sister denominations is this: We must in a 
kind, and candid, and christian spirit seek to convince each other. 
Let us examine these questions as christian brothers should. Let 
us consider this new branch of evidence in the spirit of Paul, — Lord, 
what wilt Thou have me to do ? More light may yet arise from 
God's Word. Geology has taught us one lesson in the interpreta- 
tion of the bible, and phiJology is teaching us another. 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 



Let UH seek not for victory but for the trutli. We think the time 
has fully arrived when this perplexing, divisive question should be 
decided. For the sake of union, and not for controversy, we have 
written this pamphlet. It is our only Jiope for union. 

Our JJaptist brethren claim certain underlying principles. 

1, They tell us that only one mode of baptism was kno wn by oui' 
Savior and the apostles. Hence every descriptive allusion, fairly 
interpreted, indicates this same mode, whatever it was. 

2, That baptism, like the communion service, is simply that, and 
only that, which the New Testament either mentions, or fairly im- 
plies. Human reason and wisdom may supplement the teaching of 
the bible respecting some other religious questions; but we must un- 
derstand passages which refer to baptism simply as they read. Gen- 
erally they seek rather a strict construction. They quote these pas- 
sages: They went down into the water. They came out of the water. 
Jesus and the multitudes were baptized in Jordon. They tell us 
such words and phrases furnish reasonable and probable evidence of 
immersion. As among the first examples of christian baptism the 
mode is thus described. No change by human authority. We 
cordially accept each of these underlying principles, chiefly because 
they appear to us to be true. We do not expect legal and technical 
evidence of the mode. But we do expect some reasonable and prob- 
able evidence. Tliey might, indeed, have stepj^ed into^ or just within. 
a small stream to find clear water. The evidence in these tcoi'ds is 
far from decisive. Yet we frankly admit it as probable. Such words 
appear far more like immersion than like sprinkling. We also gladly 
admit these principles; they furnish an immovable basis for our ar- 
gument. Important principles, like a two-edged sword, frequently 
cut in difierent directions. Errors more frequently arise, by insen- 
sibly assuming an erroneous foundation, and then reasoning correctly 
from it. It is well known that the adv'ocates of sprinkling havo 
ever considered those words as erroneous translations, but the evi- 
dence was uncertain. We noiv propose to prove their translation un- 
questionably erroneous. If so, the probability of immersion is as 
fully disproved, as it is proved by our version. Suppose that every 
writer in the Greek Testament had carefully avoided these words. 
Suppose that not the slightest intimation could be found in the New 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 3. 

Testament, that any person went into the water for baptism, or came 
out of the water after baptism ; or tliat any person was baptized in 
Jordan, or in any water. In snch case the reasonable probability 
would, so tar, be very strong a^(^ms^ammersion. We expect to show 
precisely such facts, beyond all critical controversy. We also find 
sncli passages as the following: When she was baptized and her 
household. If Luke had intended to express the conversion of such 
households he would doubtless have so said. Such allusions furnish 
a probability of infant baptism similar to the probability of immer- 
sion furnished by the phrase. They went into the water. Our breth- 
ren will admit that these Greek words and phrases should be trans- 
lated, as hundreds of similar words and phrases are translated, in 
other passages. We read of going into a ship, into the closet, into 
the temple, and into so many and various localities. 

These words and phrases in Greek have a precise and definite 
form. The real question is this. How does the Greek Testament use 
these words and phrases ? We confine our inquiries respecting this 
new branch of evidence (Greek Idiom in question) to the Greek Tes- 
tament, though the same form appears in classic Greek. Every 
language has its peculiar phrases for expressing certain facts. A 
foreigner, learning English, may open a hymn book. At the top of 
the page he finds the capital letters, M, I, X. He little suspects 
that they indicate the number of the hymn. He reads them as mix. 
We read in Greek, (Acts, YII, 20,) Moses was born, and was beau- 
tiful to God. This was the Oriental phrase for saying he was very 
beautiful, or^-exc ceding fair. We easily overlook or mistake some 
peculiar phrases in a foreign language; yet such mistakes are readily 
and decisively explained. We apprehend the principal errors in our 
version of the bible refer to baptism. 

We will state, definitely, our design. We propose to show, 
chiefly by the words of the bible, that baptism as performed by John 
the Baptist, by the apostles, and by all others mentioned in the 
New Testament, was by sprinkling, or aflTusion. In other words, it 
was by putting a small quantity of water upon the head. We pro- 
pose to show, decisively, that baptism, by immersion, was unknown 
to the bible. 'No probable allusion to such baptism appears in the 
New Testament. We hope to show that, in New Testament usage, 



4- NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

haptizo iisuall}^, if not invariably, signifies sprinkle, or ivet with a 
little water. The jailer (at Pliilippi — Acts, XYI, 25-34) and his fam- 
ily were baptized. We propose to show decisively that the jailer, 
and himself only , was considered and treated as converted. Also 
our references correspond to ow English version, not the Greek or 
Hebrew. "We propose to explain the following topics : 

1, Baptizo as it is nsed by the classic writers. 

2, The nsage of the Greek chnrch. 

3, The Greek Idiom or usage, in the words and phrases used, 
for going into any locality, going through it, or coming out of it. 

4, The baptism of the eunuch, as going near to^ but not into the 
water. 

5, The baptism of Christ at or near to Jordan, but not in Jordan. 

6, The baptism of the multitudes by John. 

7, Incidental evidence. 

8, Baptizo as used in the Greek Testament. 

9, Summary, evidence for sprinkliiig. 

10, Infant baptism. 

1, Baptizo as it is used by the classic writers. 

We propose to quote every classic example of haptizo of which 
we can learn. We find one hundred and fourteen. For many of 
these we are indebted to Dr. Dale's work on Classic Baptizo, also to 
Baptist writers. We have, in some cases, adopted, verbatim. Dr. 
Dale's explanations. Their precision admits no change without in- 
^'ury. In all we have adopted his references. But our classification 
differs from his. Dr. Carson says: "I have appealed to a higher 
tribunal than the authority of all critics^ to use itself. ^^ This is right. 
We follow his example. We thus classify the difierent examples : 

1, Classic passages in which haptizo does not express or imply 
immerse. 

2, Passages which express drowning a person, sinking a ship, or 
some long-continued, destructive immersion. 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 5, 

3, Doubtful passages. 

4, Two passages in wliicli the meaning of haptizo is unknown. 
1 , Classic passages in which baptizo does not express or imply 

immerse. 

Many of these make no reference to even one drop of water, or 
other fluid. Neither do they refer to any form of immersion. Dr. 
Carson claims this: "1 will make haptizo find me ivater sufficient to 
dip in amid a sandy desert." By this he intends water sufficient to 
immerse a person. He does not mean water sufficient to dip the tip 
of his finger. We can practice such a baptism. We are at a loss to 
conjecture where he w^ould find the w^ater sufficient to dip in, among 
the following examples: 

1, By stupefying with an opiate drug. From Achilles Tatius. 
Leucippe and Clit. II, 31. " Satyrus had somewhat left of the drug 
with which he had put Conops to sleep. Of this, while serving us, 
he pours secretly into the last cup, which he brought to Panthia. 
She, rising, went to her chamber, and immediately slept. But Leu- 
cippe had another chamber servant, whom having (kata-haptizo) bap- 
tized (stupefied) by the same drug, Satyrus comes to the door-keeper 
of the third door, and him he cast down by the same potion." Four 
examples are here mentioned, in varying phrase, as graceful writers 
usually do. In each Satyrus is represented as stupefying the person 
by portions of the same drug. We are at a loss to imagine w^ords and 
statements more indisputable. In the third example he uses haptizo 
in the sense of stupefy. No allusion is made to one drop of water, 
nor to anything which resembles immersion. But a causative in- 
fluence^ external to the person, changing the state or condition of Leu- 
cippe' s servant, is evident. Such a causative influence, changing 
the condition of the person or article baptized, underlies every known 
example of haptizo. We sometimes speak of intoxicated persons as 
immersed or overwhelmed in intemperance. But we find no intem- 
perance in these persons. They were, this once, by deception, and 
without their own suspicion, stupefied with an opiate drug. After 
completing these quotations we will consider the questions respect- 
ing whelm and overwhelm, and haptizo as figurative. It suffices here 
to say that Conops, Panthia, and Leucippe's servant, were not im- 
mersed in water, or in any other fluid. 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 



2, By intoxication. 

A. From Conon, Narrat. 

'' Tliebe exhorted to tlie murder, and having bajytized (changed) 
and put to sleep Alexander, bj much wine, she dismisses the guards 
of the bed chamber, under the pretense of using the bath, and called 
the brothers to the work." 

Dr. Conant thus translates this passage: "Thebe immersed 
Alexander in wine, that is, having made him drunk with wine.'' 
We remark that Dr. Conant fully admits these facts. We honor 
his frankness. Thebe baptized Alexander, and put him to sleep by 
inducing him to drink much wine. Prohahly^ as in the previous ex- 
ample, the wine was drugged with some opiate. Of this we are not 
informed. But drinking much wine was all the baptism. Nothing 
more, and nothing less, and nothing diiferent. 

B. From Plato. Banquet lY. 

'' For I myself am of those who yesterday v»'ere baptized (intox- 
icated)." 

C. From Antheneus Philos. Banq. IX., 44. 

"Then baptizing me povv^erfuUy, (by causing her to drink much 
wine) he set me free." Dr. Conant gives this version. "The ser- 
vant girl, describing the effect of a cup of wine given by her master, 
says: * Then whelming potently, he set me free."' As in the pre- 
vious example the fact that baptizo expressed neither more nor less 
than causing the girl to drink much wine, is frankly admitted. 
Atheneus understood this baptizing^ by drinking much wine, as indi- 
cating the change from slavery to freedom. Just so, christian bap- 
tism (in case of adult persons) indicates the great change of heart, 
from an unconverted to a converted state. 

D. From Atheneus Philos. Banq. Y., 64. 

" Ye seem to me, O ye convivialists, to be flooded beyond expec- 
tation with impetuous words, and to be baptized by unmixed wine." 

E. From Evenus. Paros. Epigram XY. 

"Bacchus (wine) baptizes by sleep the neighbor of death." 

F. From Plutarch, Alex., LYII. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 



He is describing the riotous march of Alexander's army. " You 
would not have seen a shield, nor a helmet, nor a long pike. But 
soldiers baptizing with bowls, and cups, and flagons, along the way, 
pledged one another from large wine jars and mixing vessels." 

G. From Plutarch. Water and Land Animals, XXIII. 

'^The nobleman, being sober as you see, and prepared, sets upon 
us debauched and baptized from yesterday." They were not im- 
mersed, but drunk. 

H. From Plutarch. Banq. Ill, 8. 

*' Of those slightly intoxicated, the body is yet able to serve its 
impulses, being not yet baptized (fully drunk)." What is more dis- 
similar to Immersion in water than this ? 

I. From Lucian. Bacchus, YII. 

''When an old man drinks (from the the fountain of Silenus) 
and Silenus (ever drunk) takes possession of him, immediately he is 
for a long time silent, and resembles one heavy-headed and bap- 
tized,^^ Here we find nine examples in which baptizo expresses sim- 
ply intoxicate, without addition or diminution. But every one in- 
cludes a change. 

3, By anger and excitement. 

A. From Chariton Aphrod, II, 4. 

"Then appeared the conflict of reason and passion. For 
although baptized (changed, excited,) by the passion, the nobleman 
attempted to resist, and rose up as out of a great wave." 

B. From Chariton Aphrod, III, 2. 

But Dyonisius was seized by a storm, and baptized as to his soul; 
but yet he strove to rise above the passion, as out of a great wave." 

C. From Chariton Aphrod, III, 4. 

" I saw a vessel wandering in pleasant weather, full of its own 
storm (of anger and mutiny) and baptized (nearly ruined) in a calm 
(calm weather)." 

D. From Dion Cassius, XXXYIII, 2T. 

"Carried along in troubled and unsettled aflfairs, they difl^er little 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 



or nothing from those tempest tossed, and should they commit any, 
even the least mistake, they are wholly baptized (changed, over- 
come)," 

E. From Achilles Tatius. Leucippe and Clit. Yl, 19. 

"But he, baptized by anger is subdued; and wishing to escape 
into his own domain, is no longer free, but is forced to hate the 
object loved." 

4, By confusing with perplexing questions.. 

From Plato, Euthedemus, YII. 

" Clinias, a young man in company with some sophists, w^as 
hopelesly embarrassed by a series of subtle questions addressed to 
him. I, knowing the youth was baptized^ ( confused) 'wished to 
relieve him." 

5, By wantonness. 

From Proclus, Chrestom, XYI. 

" lo Bacchus was sung in feasts and sacrifices, baptized, with 
much wantonness." 

6, By punishment. 

From Plutarch. Aristophanes and Men. 

" He is praised because he Jap^z^t^ (punished) the steward, being 
not stewards but sharks." 

7, By consuming time. 

A. From Alcipron Epistle, II, 3. 

"If I purpose to see all the rivers, my life will be baptized {hata- 
baptizo, consumed) without seeing Glycera." 

B. From Libanius. Memorial. 

" You do not announce this want of leisure to those giving 
splendid feasts ; but, if asked your decision concerning more impor- 
tant matters, you have no leisure, but are baptized (occupied)." 

8, By sleep. 

From Heliodorus. Ethiopics, IV, 17. 

"When midnight had baptized the city with sleep." 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 



9, Bj disease. 

From Plutarch. Banquet, VI. 

A. "A great resource, truly, for a pleasant day, is a good tem- 
perament of body, unhaptized, and unburdened." 

B. From Plotinus Ennead, I, 4, 9. 

" But when he does not so continue, being baptized by diseases, 
and the arts of wizards." We are ot course not responsible for the 
accuracy of a classic writer. We quote his words as we find them. 

10, By toil. 

From Plutarch. Education, XIII. 

"Eager that .their children excel quickly in all things, they 
impose upon them labors beyond measure. For as plants are nour- 
ished by water in measure, but are choked by excess; after the same 
manner the soul grows by labors in measure, but is baptized (weak- 
ened) by excess." 

11, By pouring oil upon tow. 

From Esop. Man and Fox. 

He mentions this method of punishing a mischievous fox, 
''^ Baptizing the tow with oil, binding it to her tail, he set it on fire." 
Dr. Conant would thus read it: "Dipping the tow in oil." We 
reply by asking this question, Considering the form of an oil-can, 
either ancient or modern, would not ninety-nine of a hundred pour 
a little oil upon the tow ? The wise virgins had oil in their vessels 
with their lamps. They would pour it upon or into their lamps, as 
several forms of lamps were then used. 

12, Baptizing wine by tempering it. 

From Plutarch. Physical Questions. 

" Why do they pour in beside the wine sea water ^ and say that 
fishermen received an oracle, commanding them to baptize Bacchus 
at (pros, near to,) the sea." Dr. Conant says: " To Jap^z^e Bacchus 
is nothing else than to temper wine." This is doubtless true. We 
credit him with frankness. This was a heathen rite, directed by the 
oracle. It was by (or near to) the sea, because sea water was to be 
used. Pros does not express in or into. It is rarely so rendered. 



10. NEW AND DECISIVP: EVIDENCE OF THE 

■ 

It is never so rendered unless tlie meaning be vert/ jdainly self evi- 
dent. As sea water (salt water) was used, we may infer that only a 
few^ drops were used. Else no person could drink the wine. Put- 
ting a few drops of water into a quantity of wine does not immerse 
the wine. • The quantity of water was no greater than we use in bap- 
tism by sprinkling. It was doubtless smaller. They fairly sprinkled 
the wine with a homoeopathic dose of salt water. We ask our breth- 
ren, Is not this true ? 

13, By writing in blood witli one finger. 

From Plutarch. Par. Gr. and Rom., III. 

" The wounded (dying) soldier baptized his hand (the tip of one 
finger) in the blood, and wrote upon the trophy." This was his 
only method of writing. He probably used his own blood, in very 
small quantity. 

14, By floating a bladder upon water. 
From Plutarch Theseus, XXIY . 

'* A bladder thou mayest be baptized, (slightly wet) but there is 
no decree for thee to sink." Neither wind, nor wave, ever covered 
this article in water. It would rise upon the top of an)^ wave. It 
would wet only a little of of the under side. Only sufiicient force 
or weight could cover it in water. The same force could sink it. 
Plutarch refers to the bladder, by itself, without other weight at- 
tached. 

15, By conquering. 

A. From Heimerius, XY, 3. 

"Great at Salamis, for there fighting liehaptized (conquered) all 
Asia." He did not immerse all the inhabitants of Asia in the little 
gulf at Salamis. The writer simply mentions the fact that this battle, 
by its decisive results, practically conquered all Asia. He makes no 
reference to any person as going into the water. 

B. From Libanius. Declamations, XX. 

"Salamis w^as the pinnacle of exploits where thou didst baptize 
(conquer) all Asia." 

C. From Libanius. Epistle, 310. 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. II, 

" He who hardly bears the things which he is ah'eady bearing 
would be baptized (overcome) by a small addition." 

D. From Libanius. Emperor Julian, 71. 

" But the remainder (of the city council) being small, was Jap- 
^20^6? (overcome) by the selfish, intriguing course of the majority." 

E From Libanius. Oration, XLIII. 

"But now as you see, the matter of instruction being haptzied, 
(overcome), and all the winds put in motion against it. " 

F. From Demetrius. Cydon, XIY, 4. 

" For the soul has control over the body, and entering into it, 
is not wholly baptized (controlled) by it, but rises above it; and the 
body apart from her can do nothing." 

Gr. From Alexander. Aphrodisias, I, 28. 

" They have the soul very much baptized (influenced) by the 
body, and therefore the seminal element, partaking in the highest 
degree of the rational and physical power, makes its oflspring more 
intelligent." 

H. From Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clit, I, 3. 

"For what is sudden, all at once, and unexpected, astounds the 
soul, falling on it unawares and baptizes (kat Abapttzo, overcomes) 
it." This is simply surprise overcoming self possession. 

I. From PolyoBnus, lY, 2, 6. 

" Phillip was so long theough baptizing [BiAbaptizo, resemr 
bling modern prize-fighters,) with the Pancratiast, and sprinkling his 
face, that he did not give up, till the soldiers, wearied, scattered." 

From Demosthenes, Aristogeiton. I, 5. 

"Not the speakers, for these know how to through baptize (dia- 
baptizo, fight with accusation) with him ; but private citizens and th(? 
inexperienced." 

IT, By misfortune or sufiering. This classic usage of baptizo, 
and this only, appears in the 'New Testament. 

A. From Archilles Tatius, Leucippe ad Clit, YII, 2. 
" Misfortunes befalling 5ap^^ze us." ' 



12. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

B. From Achilles Tatius, Leucippe ad Clit, III, 10. 

" What crime have we committed so great, as in a few days to 
be baptized by such a multitude of evils V 

C. From Plutarch. Galba, XXI. 

"Knowing him to be licentious, and extravagant, and baptized 
by debts of fifty millions." 

D. From Diodorus Siculus, I, 73. 

" On account of the abundant revenue from these sources, they 
do not baptize the people with taxes." 

E. From Heliodorus. Ethiopics, II, 3. 

" Cnemon perceiving that he was deeply grieved and baptized 
by Ihe calamity, and fearing he would do himself some injury, re- 
moves the sword privately." 

F. From Plutarch, respecting Socrates. 

" Baptized by wordly affairs we should struggle out, and try to 
reach the harbor." 

G. From Heliodorus, Ethiopics, lY, 20. 

" But let us not be cobaptized {sumbaptizo equally b aptized,) by 
this grief of his; nor be unobservantly carried away by his tears, as 
with a torrent." 

H. From Libanius. Life. 

"He exhorts the bread-makers to be more just; but he did not 
think proper to use compulsion, fearing the running away of the 
mass, by which the city would immediately be baptized (injured, or 
nearly starved,) just as a ship, the sailors having deserted it." 

I. From Heliodorus, Ethiopics, Y, 16. 

"The relation of your wanderings, often postponed, as you 
know, because casualities still baptized you, you cannot keep for a 
better opportunity than the present." 

J. From a funeral discourse in memory of the Emperor Julian. 

By Libanius, Emperor Julian, 148. 

" Grief for him, baptizing the soul, and darkening the under- 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 1 3. 

standing, brings a certain mistiness before our eyes." 

K. From Tliemistius. Oration, XX. 

" But when she (Philosophy) sees me baptized by grief, and car- 
ried away by tears, she is displeased." 

18, By woman's milk. 

From Hippocrates, II, 710. A medical prescription. 

" Then dipping into oil (rose or Egyptian) apply it through the 
day; and, as soon as it stings, take it away, and baptize it again in 
woman's milk." This is understood, probably correctly, as pre- 
scribing a blister. This question arises. Did they baptize with 
such milk the flesh where this blister had been placed ? Or did 
they baptize the blister plaster in, or with, such milk, and then re- 
place this plaster upon the flesh ? We have consulted various phy- 
sicians. Every one agreed in this answer, " I never heard of any 
physician thus applying milk of any kind to a blister plaster." 
To this, one well educated physician added this remark, "It is absurd 
upon the face of it, thus to apply milk.- No person ever called HijD- 
pocrates a fool." Another physician added this remark, without 
knowing the answer of the other, " Possibly some physicians 
have so used milk, for there are some fools in the world." 
These phrases may appear not very courteous, but they are not 
ours. We have reported the precise words of the Medical Faculty, 
as a witness should. It is eas}^ to consult physicians in other lo- 
calities. Well educated physicians may differ as to the best 
methods of curing the sick. All other classes in this world may 
diflfer. An Allopathic physician may deem the Homoeopathic 
usages as not the best. But every physician worthy of the name, 
knows what are the opinions and usages of other physicians and 
other medical schools. Every physician knows what remedies are 
in common use. He well knows the views of Hippocrates, " the 
Father of Medicine." 

The United States Dispensatory has been for many years a 
standard work among physicians. In that (page 973, 974) we find a 
prescription to put an emollient cataplasm, or poultice, upon the 
flesh after a blister, in some cases. 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 



Possibly, in different editions of this Dispensatory, tlie paget?; 
may differ. If so, the index will show this prescription. 

Blisters are usually placed upon some part of the body, some- 
times upon the head, rarely upon an arm, and neyer upon a finger. 
The absurdity of immersing aZZ ^Ai.s-yXes/i m such milk is indisput- 
able. Hippocrates used blisters essentially as allopathic physicians 
now use them. His design in this prescription was unquestionably 
the following: For a mild case, he would remove the blister plaster 
when it began to sting, and then, to soothe the fleshy lie would bap- 
tize, or slightly wet this sore flesh with a little such milk. He would 
use, almost precisely, as much milk upon the flesh, as we use of 
water upon the head in baptism. Not a solitary example can be 
quoted, either from classic Greek or from New Testament Greek, 
which so nearly corresponds to immersion, as our brethren practice 
it, as this example corresponds to baptism as we practice it. If our 
brethren know of such an example, we hope they will quote it for 
the information of the world. The idea of applying such milk to 
the plaster, instead of the flesh, was very convenient for our Baptist 
brethren. We give them credit for originality. When such a de- 
cisive objection to our theory stares us in the face, we need to be 
very cautious of so convenient an escape. But we will consider 
their view. 

We will make these two inquiries: We have many skilled 
Baptist physicians. Did any one of them, even once in his life, 
thus remove a blister plaster, wet the plaster with milk of any kind, 
and then replace the plaster upon the flesh ? Even it he did so, did 
he immerse the plaster in milk, or only wet the inside of it with a 
little milk? If any such physician did both these, please give the 
world his name and place of residence. 

We find, so far, forty-nine examples of classic bapdzo. Neither 
of them expresses immerse in any form. But every 07ie implies an 
essential change produced. 

We next quote a list of classic examples in which baptizo ex- 
presses drowning a person, sinking a ship, or some long-continued, 
destructive immersion. 

1, From Dion Cassius. Roman History, XLI, 42. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. I5. 

*' Crowds of tliem, fleeing, perished, some in embarking upon 
the boats, thrown down bj the press; others, even in the boats, 
baptized, sunk by their own weight." 

This usage of haptizo as drown, or Jcill, proves too much in two 
respects. 

A, Drowning a person, sinking a ship, or any long-continued, 
dangerous, or destructive immersion, is very dilterent from a safe, 
momentary immersion, for Christian baptism or for bathing. Our 
Savior, certainly, never intended such a mode of bajDtism as would, 
surely^ and immediately, drown every person. 

B, As might be expected, this usage of bajJtizo, as drowning 
a person, is unknown to the Greek Testament. We will more fully 
explain these facts after making the quotations. 

2, From Dion Cassius, L., 35. 

" Struck by the enemy, they were baptized (drowned.) 

3, From Heliodorus. Eth., I., 30. 

'^ Baptizing (sinking) others into the lake." 

4, From Epictet. Mor. Dis., XI. 

" As you would not wish, sailing in a large and elegant gilded 
ship, to be baptized (drowned.)" 

5, From Lucian. Timon, 44. 

"• Thrust such a one upon the head, baptizing (drowning) him." 

6, From Themistius. Orat., lY. 

" One saved in the voyage, whom it were better to baptize 
(drown.") 

7, From Alcibiades on Eupolis. 

" But baptizing you with sea waves, I will destroy you with 
bitter billows." 

8, From Plutarch. Gryllus, YII. 

" Nobly baptizing (drowning) himself in the lake Copais." 

9, From Esop. Ape and Dolphin. 

" And the dolphin, displeased at such a falsehood, baptizing 
(drowning) him, drowned him." 



1 6. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

10, From Strabo, XIY., 2, 42. 

'' Then floating, through the nature of tlie water, (salt and 
heavy, as in the Dead Sea,) according to which we have said to swim 
was not necessary, nor is one entering it, baptized^ (sunk, drowned) 
hut lifted out." In the Dead Sea a man can sink only to his arms. 

11, From Strabo, YI., 2, 9. 

" Pools near Agrigentum have the taste of salt w^ater, but of a 
different nature (very strong by salt, with other elements.) For it 
does not happen to be the unskillful in swimming to be baptized 
(sunk or drowned.) 

12, From Suidas. Lexicon. 

"They were baptized (drowned) by the full armor." 

13, From Diodorus. Siculus, XYI., 80. 

"The river, with a strong current rolling down, baptized 
(drowned) many, and, swimming through with their arms, it des- 
troyed them." 

14, From Diodorus Siculus, I., 36. Inundation of the Nile. 

" Many of the land animals, surrounded by the river, perish, 
being baptized (drowned;) but some, fleeing to the higli places, are 
saved." 

15, From Lucian. True History, II., 4. 

"We wondered, therefore, seeing them (men with cork feet) not 
baptized (sunk, drowned,) but sustained above the waves." 

16, From Pindar, II. 

" I am unbaptij.ed (not sunk, drowned,) like a cork upon a net." 

IT, From Esop. Shepherd and the Sea. 

" A severe storm occurring, and the ship in the hazard of being 
baptized (sunk,) throwing out all the cargo into the sea, he was 
barely saved by the empty ship." 

18, From Diodorus Siculus, XI., 18. 

" The (iommander w^as slain, and his ship being baptized (sunk 
or ruined), confusion seized the fleet of the barbarians." 



MODEOFBAPTISM. ly. 

19, From Dion Cassius. Roman History, XXXYIl., 58. 

" The vessels wliich were in the Tiber, and were anchored at the 
<'ity, and at its mouth, and were baptized (drowned.) 

20, From Hippocrates, III., 809. 

" Shall not I ridicule one baptizing (sinking) his ship by much 
freight, and blaming the sea for sinking it full." 

21, From Archilles Tatius, III., 1. 

'' The wind changes suddenly to the other side of the ship, and 
it is nearly baptized (sunk.)" 

22, From the same; sequel to the last. 

" We all, therefore, changed our positions to the higher parts of 
the ship, that we might raise up the baptized (sunken) part." Pos- 
sibly they succeeded. More probably, not. This was certainly a 
dangerous baptizing. Probably it was a complete destruction. 

23, From Dion Cassius. Roman History, LXXIY., 13. 

" Attempting to escape some way or other, some of the ships 
were baptized (sunk) by the wind, using it immoderately; others 
were destroyed, being overtaken by the enemy." 

24, From Dion Cassius, L., 18. 

" And if any vessel came near, how could it be that it would 
not be baptized (sunk) by the very multitude of the rowers." 

25, From Dion Cassius, L., 32. 

"If they succeeded, they came off the better; bat, if they 
failed, their own vessels, being crushed, were baptized (sunk, 
ruined.)" 

26, From Dion Cassius, L., 32. 

" The others baptizing (sinking) the attacking ships by stones 
and engines from above." 

27, From Plutarch Marcell, XV. 

" Some by a weight from above pressing down, they sank into 
the deep; others, by iron hands or mouths like cranes, drawing up 
by the prow, upright upon the stern, they baptized (sunk.) 

-28, From Polybius. History, I., 51, m. 



1 8. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

" They made incessant attacks, and baptized (sunk) many of the 
ships." 

29, - From Polybins. History, VIII., 8, 4. 

" But the most, the prow being let down from on high, were 
baptized (sunk), and became full of the sea and confusion." 

30, Fj'om Polybius. History, XYI., 6, 2. 

" Pierced and baptized by a hostile vessel." 

31s From Plutarch. Animals, XXXY. 

•' Of many models, the only one not to be overturned and un- 
baptizable (cannot be sunk)." Like some life-boats. It is not easy 
to overturn or sink a boat of this construction. 

32, From Himerius, X., 2. 

" I will show you, also, my soldiers, one fighting most na- 
turally, even in a painting; and another, by his hands, baptizing 
and sinking the fleet of the Persians." 

33, From Dion Cassius, L., 32. Sequel to No. 25. 

" Their vessels being pierced by them, were baptized (sunk.) 

34, From Plutarch Sylla, XXI. 

" And dying, they filled the lake with dead bodies, so that to 
the present, many barbaric arrows and helmets, and pieces of iron 
breast-plates, and swords baptized (sunk) in the marshes, are found 
(at low water.)" 

35, From Hippocrates, III., 571. 

" And breathes as one out of a state of baptizing (nearly drown- 
ing.)" 

36, From Libanius. Epistle XXV. 

" I am ot those baptized (so nearly drowned) by that great 
wave." 

37, From Porphyry. Abstinence, p. 282. A test of inno- 
cence, or of guilt or punishment. 

" Being innocent, he advances unhesitatingly, having the water 
to the knees; but, when guilty, he is baptized (sunk) to the head." 



MODEOFBAPTISM. I9. 

He was represented as probably drowned. Or, at least very near 
drowning. We are not responsible for the accuracy of such tests. 
We quote the words and meaning of Porphyry. 

38, From Achilles Tatius, lY., 10. 

" Baptizes (controls, limits) the breathing power of the intel- 
lect." 

39, From Aristotle. Wonderful Reports of the Atlantic 
Shores. 

*' Which, when it is ebb tide, are not baptized (covered with 
water.)" A small tide arises in the Mediterranean Sea, where the 
Greeks were acquainted. This greater immersion continued, like 
other tides, for several hours. Such a tide arising, twice each day, 
would drown every land animal, and nearly every vegetable in its way. 

40, From Strabo, XII, 2, 4. Respecting a stream flowing 
very rapidly through a narrow channel. 

" To one throwing down a javelin from above into the channel, 
the force of water resists so much, that it is hardly baptized (sunk.)" 

We remark: 

1, If the javelin should be baptized (sunk) in such a current, 
it would be hopelessly lost. This was the reference made. 

2, The javelin would doubtless be carried only a little way 
down stream, and there hopelessly lost. 

3, If ant/ person had entered that place in the stream, the re> 
suit would have been almost certain and immediate death. 

We will next quote thirteen other examples of baptizo in 
which we fail to appreciate a complete immersion. In some of them 
we fail to discover any immersion. But this failure mat/ insensibly 
arise from our previous views. Our brethren are understood to 
claim them, and we waive our objections. If the immersion be 
doubtful or improbable, the JciUin^, or at least the serious injury, is 
certain and immediate. 

41, From Polybius History, Y., 47. 

" But ships baptized (embaptizo) by themselves, and sinking 
(at high water) in the marshes, were all useless, and many of them 



20. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

were destroyed." Probably, not one of these ships was covered with 
the water for one moment, as the water in the marshes was not suf- 
ficiently deep." The mast was too high. So it appears to us. But 
the ships were baptized (ruined.) 

42, From Heliodorus. Ethiop., Y., 28. 

*' Already being baptized (ruined), and wanting little of going 
down, some of the pirates at first attempted to pass into their own 
boat." Here also, apparently, the ship was baptized (ruined) be- 
fore it went down. In both these exumples the baptism seems to 
consist in the ruin of the ships, b}'' breaking them. This ruin (bap- 
tizing) caused them to sink. 

43, From Alexander Aphrodisias, 1., 16. 

"Why do many made drunk with wine die? Because the 
quantity of wine (by its semi-poisonous power), baptizes (^a^abap- 
tizo, overcomes) the vital power and warmth." If reference be 
here made to so much wine, as covering some vital organ, and thus 
drowning the person, water would thus drown him. Wine kills by 
its semi-poisoning, or disarranging the vital actions. Here, also, 
the killing is indisputable. • 

44, From Alexander Aphrodisias, I., 16. 

"Why do some, being alarmed, die? Because the physical 
power, flowing overmuch into the depth with the blood, all at once 
baptizes (overcomes) and quenches the natural and vital warmth of 
the heart, and causes death." 

The classic Greeks did not very fully understand anatomy and 
physiology. We can here appreciate no immersion. But the bap- 
tism kills the person. 

45, From Eubulus. Nausicaa. 

" Who is baptized, now the fourth day wearing away the life 
of a miserable, starving mullet." This person was not immersed 
(covering his head in water) four days. In four minutes he would 
thus have been dead. But his severe distress, of some kind, almost 
death, is evident. 

46, From Libanius. Epistle, 962. 

" This is he who, having found the miserable Simon baptized 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 21. 

(in distress) did not overlook him." We are now carefully inquir- 
ing whether classic baptizo signifies immerse and only immerse. It 
is, ot course, out of order to assume in these examples the precise 
point in dispute. A Mormon can assume the divine authority of 
Brigham Young. Any errorist can do this. We fail to under- 
stand any other evidence of the immersion of Cimon. 

47, From Plotinus, I., 8, 13. 

'' She dies, therefore, as the soul may die; and death to her, 
even yet baptized (controlled) in the body, is to sink in matter, and 
to be filled with it." 

48, From Plotinus Ennead, I., 8, 13. 

" The sword w^as baptized in the body." 

49, From Homer's Life and Poetry. 

'' For, indeed, he hereby shows greater emphasis, as if the 
sword were so baptized as to be warmed." 

Here we remark: 

A, The sword was, probably, not completely covered in the 
body, as our brethren practice baptism. At least the handle or hilt 
was left out. Usually a sword is too long to admit of a total im- 
mersion in the body of a man. The warm blood flowing along the 
sword would quickly warm it. Even its own conducting power 
would quickly warm it. 

B, This, also, was a killing baptism. 

50, From Archilles Tatius, III., 21. A juggler's trick. 

" But they who look on think the sword to be baptized down 
the body, but it runs up into the hollow of the handle." Here, 
also, if the sword were thus baptized (immersed) down the body, 
it would surely kill the person. 

51, From Esop. Mule. 

^^' Always in passing through the river, he let himself down and 
baptized (soaked) the panniers." These panniers were two square 
baskets, hung, one on each side of the mule, by straps passing over 
his back. 



22. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

The mule thus intended to soak and injure the articles in the 
panniers, which he was compelled to carry. The complete immer- 
sion of these articles appears doubtful. But the injury is certain. 
It was also the special design. 

52, From Strabo, XIY., 3, 9. 

" Alexander, falling upon the stormy season, and trusting com- 
monly to fortune, pressed on, before the flood went out; and through 
the entire day, the army marched, baptized up to the waist.'' 

53, From Polybius, III., 72, 4. 

" They marched through with difficulty, the infantry being 
baptized up to the waist." If these last two examples had furn- 
ished a complete immersion, every soldier would have been drowned. 
A. partial immersion, by wading all day in water up to the waist is 
severe. It is very weakening. Doubtless a part of the soldiers 
sunk beneath the waters. How many, we are not informed. 

We have thus forty examples of drowning, sinking of ships, 
or some dangerous, destructive immersion. 

We have thirteen other examples in which ive fail to appreciate 
a complete immersion. In five of them we fail to perceive any im- 
mersion. But, if our brethren claim them as examples of immer- 
sion, we waive our objections. They are each and all sufficiently 
destructive. Sane persons would practice such immersions only by 
imperative necessity. 

We will proceed to quote eight other examples of baptizo : 

1, From Strabo, XII., 5, 4. Of Salt Lakes. 

'' The water is so easily incrusted about everything baptized into 
it, that they draw up crowns of salt, when they let down a rush 
circle." 

2, From Archias. Epigr., X. 

" Fishing-rod triply stretched, and cork unbaptized (not sunk in 
the water.)" 

3, From Orpheus. Argonautica, 512. 

" The sun baptized himself into the ocean flood." 

4, From Nicander. Geo. II. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 



'' Baptize many in strong brine, after dipping in boiling water." 
A pickle. 

5, From Polybius, XXXIY., 3, 7. 

" Although the spear (fishing spear) should fall out into the 
sea, it is not lost, tor it is constructed of both oak and pine, so that 
the oak, (with iron attached) being baptized (sunk in water) the rest 
is floating, and easily recovered." 

6, From Julian. Egypt, Cupid, p. 223. 

'' I tound Cupid among the roses, and, holding him by the 
wings, I baptized him into the wine, and drank him." His tittilat- 
ing wings were soon felt within. 

7, From Archilles Tatius, lY., 18. 

" He lets down his hand into the water, and baptizing and fill- 
ing it, hollowed, with water darts the drink towards his mouth, and 
hits the mark." 

8, From Alexander Aphrodisias, I., 28. 

" Because they have their nature and perceptive power baptized 
(partly controlled) in the depth of the body." 

We remark here, merely, these last eight examples appear to 
furnish the only specimens of a safe immersion. Seven of these, 
as represented, would drown any living man. Few would be willing 
to repeat the experience of Jonah. 

We mention two doubtful examples of haptizo : 

1, From Archilles Tatius, II., 14. 

" They baptized a pole into the water, prepared with pitch." 
This pole was probably covered with pitch to increase its durability, 
and then set upright in the mud and water. If so, they probably 
left a part of the pole above water, and this was only a partial im- 
mersion. We can appreciate no utility in setting the pole covered 
under the water. This is improbable.^ But, if true, it was a per- 
manent immersion, and would drown any person. If the pole 
floated on the water, this was a partial immersion. 

2, From Homeric Allegories, p. 495. 

" Since now a mass of iron, pervaded with fire, drawn out of 



24- NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

the furnace, is baptized by water; and the heat, by its own nature 
quenched by water, ceases." A blacksmith prefers to let a small 
piece of hot iron cool in the air. If necessary to cool it quickly, he 
immerses it in water. The word, a mass of iron drawn out of the 
furnace, appears to imply a large piece or a large bar of hot iron. 
We apprehend that any large piece, or mass, or bar of hot iron is 
rarely, if ever, immersed in water to cool it. Cast iron would thus 
be broken into fragments. Wrought iron would be injured. A 
quantity of steam would be produced which would scald the 
operator. Probably the fair and best method of deciding this ques- 
tion would be to inquire of the large iron manufacturers, What is 
their practice? This is easily ascertained. When we see them im- 
merse a mass of red-hot iron in water to cool it, we may see some- 
thing new. We hope to stand at a respectful distance. 

3, We mention two other passages in which the practical 
meaning of baptizo is unknown: 

" Call the purifying Old Woman and baptize thyself, (going) 
to{eis) the sea, and remain all day sitting upon the ground." ^is, 
by itself, does not express going into the sea. We will explain this 
in connection with going into the water and baptizing in Jordan. 
Only by assuming baptizo as immerse, while that precise question is 
under discussion, have we any probability that the person set his 
foot in the sea. We presume he did not. 

2, From Arrian, II., 9. 

1, From Plutarch. Superstition, III. 

" So, also, we are Parabaptists." This passage has probably no 
reference to the mode of their baptism. It was, doubtless, the 
usual mode, whatever that was. So Paul says, I baptized ^ ^- •»«• 
Crispus and Gains. Such sentences furnish no information re- 
specting the mode. 

GENERAL RESULTS. 

1, Some of these examples admit several different classifica- 
tions. We hade endeavored so to arrange them, as might best ex- 
hibit the usage of baptizo. In a few examples, our brethren may 
differ respecting the construction. All these can very slightly 
change the general numbers and facts. If any deem our construc- 
tion of certain passages, inaccurate, we ask a friendly correspond- 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 25. 

euce. We will eiideav-or to give such correspondence respectful and 
candid attention. If they know of any other classic examples of 
baptizo, will they please forward the quotations to the writer. Let 
us exhibit before the world, as well as before our Savior, a kind and 
candid investigation. The best of all evidence is not merely what 
our opponents have admitted, but what is true. 

2, Bathing, more nearly than any other action, resembles bap- 
tism by immersion, as our brethren practice it. But, so far as we 
can learn, classic baptizo does not once either express bathing or al- 
lude to it. Neither does it allude to washing or cleansing, not even 
the hands, or face, or feet. It makes no more reference to either 
washing or cleansing, than it does to Mr. Hayes as president. 
Bathing and washing were well known to these classic writers, but 
they used different words to express them. 

3, Baptism by immersion must be safe and momentary. Unless 
the head be put under the water, this is not baptism in the view of 
our brethren. But if the head be put under water and kept there, 
this will surely and quickly drown any living person. Yet classic 
baptizo furnishes no intimation that a safe, momentary baptism ever 
existed. 

4, We find five examples of baptizo, which, so far as we can 
appreciate, make no more reference to any form of immersion than 
they make to the wife of Melchisedek. Four others appear to us 
directly contradictory to immersion. Take, for example, the follow- 
ing: "A bladder thou mayest be baptized^ (slightly wet) but there 
is no decree for thee to sink." We are well aware that this article, 
inflated, as the writer intended, will very slightly touch the water. 
Neither wave nor tornado can sink it. A sufficient weight attached 
to it might sink it. But the same weight which could sink the top 
of it one inch under water, would sink it ten feet, if the water were 
so deep. Suppose we thus read the sentence: " A bladder, thou 
mayest be immersed, but there is no decree for thee to sm^." Or, 
taking the example of baptizing Bacchus (wine) by putting in a few 
drops of sea water Or, of writing with the tip of the finger in 
blood. Or of baptizing (immersing) the flesh of a person in 
woman's milk. We ask our brethren if these examples imply the 



26. NP]W AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

use of any more water, or blood, or milk, than we use in baptism by 
affusion? 

We find, also, forty examples in which baptizo expresses drown- 
ing, or killing a person, or sinking a ship, or some dangerous, in- 
jurious, or destructive immersion. We find thirteen more ex- 
amples in which, as we understand, our brethren claim immersion. 
We fail to perceive the immersion. But the essential injury, usually 
the killing, was certain and immediate. The drowned persons and 
the 'sunken ships have, usually, already remained thus baptized or 
sunk in the water, for two thousand years. They will doubtless re- 
main till the resurrection. 

Christian baptism, by immersion, puts a person under the 
water for the shortest possible time, and then takes him out. The 
claim is, that it represents the resurrection of Christ as fully as 
His burial. But when classic baptizo puts a person under water, it 
leaves him there. He may, possibly, escape, as Libanius did from 
that great wave. But he owed no thanks to the wave, nor to classic 
baptizo. A man may be sentenced to imprisonment for two, three, 
or five years. This limited time implies his restoration to liberty, 
when the time has expired. But imprisonment for life implies no 
such release. The prisoner may possibly escape, if he can. Yet his 
escape will be no part of his sentence, but directly contradictory to 
it. So a person may possibly escape from drowning at the last mo- 
ment; but drowning, like classic baptizo, implies no escape. Among 
one hundred and fourteen examples of classic baptizo, we find only 
eight, or one in fourteen, which imply any immersion, without also 
implying some essential injury, and usually complete destruction. In 
seven of these eight examples, any living person thus immersed 
would have been drowned. A fishing-spear and a pickle cannot be 
thus destroyed. The remaining one expresses dipping only the 
fingers into water to drink. Not a single classic example of baptiz- 
ing a person (by immersing him) without the probability, almost a 
moral certainty, of droivning or killing this person. In nineteen 
cases of twenty, the drowning or killing was sure and immediate. 
In nine cases of ten, classic baptizo is used in a very unfavorable, 
destructive sense In two or three examples among one hundred 
and fourteen, it is favorably used. 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. 2^ . 

Now, these examples furnish all the evidence of immersion 
from classic haiJtizo. This general rule of evidence will be ad- 
mitted: When a person introduces a witness, or a book, or a letter 
as testimony, he must admit the ivJiole of this testimony. He can- 
not introduce a document, and then object to certain parts of this 
testimony, merely because they are unwelcome to him, because they 
contradict his claims. Our brethren tell the world that baptizo 
expresses immerse and only immerse. Dr. Carson used this lan- 
guage : " Baptizo, in the whole history of the Greek language, has 
but one meaning. It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it 
never has any other meaning." Such is the general and persistent 
claim of our Baptist brethren. ]N'ow we ask them to tell the world 
the other side of the story. Half the truth is, in many cases, a 
gross misrepresentation. An Indian was reported as thus quoting 
the bible: "My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou." Among 
all the classic examples of baptizo, of which we can learn, every one 
which expresses immersing a person in water, means to drown that 
person. In one or two instances, among so many, the person suc- 
ceeded in swimming out or escaping. 'If our Baptist brethren can 
exhume from the classic writers a single exception to this state- 
ment, we hope they will furnish the public, and especially myself 
with the most definite information respecting it. We predict that 
not one of their best ministers and ablest writers will venture to 
deny any of these facts. Their only defense appears to be dignified 
silence. 

5, The Greek Testament ignores this usage of classic baptizo, 
as drown, or sink ships, or destroy. In various passages the classic 
writers would probably have inserted baptizo. 

Matt., xiv., 30. And beginning to sink, (in classic Greek, to be 
baptized) he cried, saying, Lord save me. 

Matt., xviii., 6. Better for him that "^ * * he were 
drowned (baptized) in the depth of the sea. 

Luke, v., T. And filled both ships so that they began to sink 
(to be baptized.) 

Heb., xi., 29. Which the Egyptians assaying to do were 
drowned (baptized.) 



28. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

These passages exhibit precisely one classic usage of baptizo. 
But the Greek Testament rejects every such usage of it. A differ- 
ent word is invariably used. It also ignores various other classic 
usages of baptizo. We find it, indisputably, used in the classics as 
stupefy with an opiate, as intoxicate, as baptized by anger and ex- 
citement, by confusing with perplexing questions, by wantonness, 
by punishment, by consuming time, by sleep, by disease, by toil, 
and by conquering. In numerous cases the classic Greeks would 
probably have introduced baptizo. 

In Acts, II., 15, they would probably have thus said: For these 
are not baptized (drunken) as we suppose, seeing it is but the third 
hour of the day. 

But neither Matthew, nor Luke, nor John, nor Paul ever once 
used it in either of these senses. This is not once so used in the 
Greek Testament. Many other words have also departed widely 
from classic usage. Four centuries among an illiterate community 
are sufiicient to modify any language. It would not be easy to find 
in the English language a book four hundred years old. Yet many 
words .have greatly changed. An early translation of the New 
Testament thus reads: "Paul, a rascal of Jesus Christ" Hascal 
then signified a servant, with no unfavorable intimation, "We now 
read: "I will work, and who shall let it." Let now signifies per- 
mit. Two hundred and seventy years ago it signified prevent^ 
almost directly opposite. Christianity also introduced a new class 
of ideas, which the classic heathen Greek never suspected. Hupere- 
tees is defined by Liddell and Scott, as a rower, a sailor, a laborer, a 
servant. 

In the Greek Testament it is thus rendered for secular use: 

In Matt., xxvi., 58, and Mark, xiv., 54, 65, it is rendered ser- 
vant. Probably a superior servant. 

In Matt., v., 25, and John, xviii., 3, 12, 18, 22, and xix, 6, it is 
rendered officer. 

For christian use it expresses minister. Aggelos signified a 
messenger. It is so used, Luke, vii., 24, 24. James (ii., 25,) uses it 
for the spies whom Joshua sent, and whom Rahab concealed. For 
christian use it expresses an angel from heaven. Diakonos ex- 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 2g. 

presses a servant, inferior to huperetees. For christian use it ex- 
presses a deacon. Ekkleesia signified an assembly. For christian 
use it expresses a churchy or association of christians. 

"We might mention a list of classic words to which christian 
usage has added a new supplementary idea. When a missionary 
would translate the bible into some heathen language, he is chiefly 
limited to such words as this language contains. This language was 
formed by the expression of secular and heathen ideas. It is de- 
ficient in words, both for christian ideas and for the names of many 
common articles used in a christian civilization. When the mis- 
sionary can find no suitable word, he must either select a word 
which is only in part suitable, and add a new usage to it, or he must 
transfer some word from another language, usually from the Greek 
Testament, or from the Hebrew Old Testament. So our transla- 
tors merely transferred the Greek words, Jesus, Christ, angel, and 
baptizo. Before the appearance of Christianity the Greeks had no 
occasion for such words. Boxa, in classic Greek, signified opinion, 
or faith. From this sense have we derived the word orthodox, or 
the right opinion, the right faith; and heterodox, or another 
opinion, another faith. Allusion is made to the phrase. Another 
gospel. In New Testament usage, doxa signifies praise or glory. 
From this sense we have derived the word doxology, or words of 
praise. Yery many such differences may be quoted. The real 
question is this. How does the New Testament use baptizo? 

We read (Lev. ii., 1, 14) of a meat offering of fine fiour, and a 
meat offering of green corn. This was then English usage, and onr 
translators adopted it. Corn signified wheat or barley. Indian 
corn was unknown to the eastern continent till found in America. 
1^^ signified food. Many words and phrases in Shakspeare differ 
from present usage. By comparing the books of Samuel and 
Kings, with Chronicles, of a later date, we find numerous changes. 
Hiram becomes Huram. Changes in the opinions or customs of 
society, occasion changes in certain words. The use of drunk as 
drinked, was common before the temperance reformation. Now 
this usage is so offensive that it is laid aside. We may say I drank 
water or I drinked it, but not I drunk it. The extension of knowL 
edge by new discoveries and inventions changes many words. Mule 



30. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

now expresses a machine for spinning cotton. Controversy changes 
the meaning of many words. Transplanting a language among a 
new people combines the two languages, and each becomes changed. 
The Greek language was transplanted into Palestine, and thus 
greatly changed. An intelligent community read books and peri- 
odicals from difterent parts, as we read English books and papers. 
They also read books from past ages. These readings prevent 
many changes. An illiterate people insensibly but rapidly intro- 
duce numerous changes. Yery great changes did occur in the usage 
of baptizo. 

5, As we understand our brethren, they claim that the primi- 
tive meaning of baptizo is immerse. All other meanings are figura- 
tive or derivative. Derivative meanings are frequently the prac- 
tical meanings. As to figurative meanings we respectfully differ. 

We assign the following reasons : 

1, We deny the supposed claim. The primitive meaning of 
baptizo appears to us to be this. Causing a change. This mean- 
ing underlies every example, without exception. The primitive 
mode of drawing a weight was to pull it by the hand. Then they 
learned to use the power of oxen, of horses, of wind, of water, and 
of steam. The idea of force, external to the weight, and pulling 
the weight along, underlies every example of drawing a material 
weight. A narrow-minded person may insist that drawing, primi- 
tively, expresses pulling by the hand.- He may protest against any 
other mode of drawing a weight. We reply that the word draw 
originally included the employment of any force which would re- 
move this weight along the ground. The genuine key for explain- 
ing the elementary or underlying meaning of any word, is a key 
w^hich explains every example of its use. Baptism represents con- 
version, or turning and cleansing from past habits of sin. It rep- 
resents the great change of becoming a new creature. As a prac- 
tical fact, conversion is produced by the influence of the Holy 
Spirit. 

Baptizo, as causing a change, appeared to be the most suitable 
word which heathen Greek afibrded to express this rite, and to rep- 
resent its design. The Holy Spirit selected this word to express this 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 3I. 

new christian rite. Doubtless He considered the design of this rite 
quite as important to be expressed by the name baptism as the 
mode. We may not object. 

Farther, wcask for some evidence that the primitive meaning 
of baptizo was immerse. In nearly half the examples known, it 
contains no such reference. In five-sixths of the examples which 
do mean immerse, it means drown, kill, injure, or destroy. It 
means to drown or kill every person who was immersed. Ko person 
will claim that baptism means drowning^ or killing every candidate. 
If we insist upon classic baptizo, we must receive it as it is. In 
thirteen examples of baptizo, we fail to discover any immersion, but 
the killing or destruction is indisputable. We may add this sug- 
gestion*: One classic usage of baptizo, and only one, appears in 
the New Testament. It is this." Baptized by suflering or distress." 
But this does not mean immerse in water. Not even " a barrel of 
tears" would suffice for this. 

2, These words appear as plain, direct, and literal, as any 
words or phrases known. Indeed, we conjecture that the idea of 
claiming baptizo as figurative, where it does not express immerse, is 
neither natural nor spontaneous to the mind of any reader. It cer- 
tainly never occurred to us. It never occurred to any person within 
our knowledge, till so explained. But it is very convenient to ex- 
plain the peculiar kind of theory of only immerse. 

3, Every word is first naturally, and probably, literal. We 
may understand a word as figurative, only by some good reason or 
evidence. Harmony with my pet theory is not a good reason. It 
is a common usage of errorists to represent any unwelcome passage 
as figurative, They said of Ezekiel, (xx., 49): " Doth he not speak 
parables?" Either of us may be in error without suspecting it. 
Either we, or our Baptist brethren, are in error respecting baptism. 
Let us kindly and candidly inquire which is right. Abraham is 
represented as saying to the rich man: " Between us and you. there 
is a great gulf fixed." It might be very convenient for some per- 
sons to translate chasma (gulf) as figuratively, meaning bridge. 

Milton represents Satan as constructing such a bridge. Neither 
our imagination nor our wishes can make error true. 



32. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

4, As these examples appear to us, many of them admit no 
figurative construction. We say a sot is immersed in intemper- 
ance. Another is immersed in sensuality. But when a servant 
(slave) girl, once, only once, by stern compulsion, but with promise 
of immediate freedom, drinks too much wine, we may not say she 
is so immersed. If one such example can be quoted from any good 
writer, we hope to see the quotation. Another person, once^ by de- 
ception, and without suspicion, swallowed an opiate drug, and im- 
mediately slept. Was this person, in any good usage of language, 
immersed in opium, or in vice, or in any other manner? We have 
too favorable an opinion of our Baptist brethren to believe that any 
one of them ever wrote such a sentence, except when explaining 
baptism. Dr. Conant wrote tvhelmed, to avoid saying immersed. 

If a slave could become free by once drinking much wine, the 
temptation would be very strong. At that moment he would think 
little of the sorrow. Let us, in the common-sense manner of the 
bible, read a few of these passages as immerse: For I, myself, am 
of those who yesterday were immersed (meaning intoxicated.) Ye 
seem to me, O ye convivalists. to be flooded with impetuous words 
and to be immersed by unmixed wine. But soldiers immersing 
with bowls and cups and flagons. A bladder thou mayest be im- 
mersed, but there is no decree for thee to sink. To immerse wine 
by pouring in a few drops of sea water. To immerse the flesh 
(nearly the whole person) with a little milk. 

5, Even such examples as possibly might be so understood are 
rarely so found. Millions of men are eligible to the oflice of presi- 
dent of the United States. In the same sense of hare possibility^ 
either one of these millions may become the next president. 

Shall we claim that each and all of them will become the next 
president? Suppose that every sentence containing the word immerse 
were collected, from every book, paper, or written document. 
Would one of a thousand of them thus figuratively express stupefy- 
ing with an opiate, or confusing with perplexing questions? Would 
one in ten millions express, figuratively, wetting the flesh with a 
spoonful of milk? Because, in rare cases, such a flgure is found, 
their reference that each and all of these examples are thus figura- 
tive, involves a great logical leap. On any given day in next July 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 33. 

or August, a tornado may arise. Shall we claim that on every day 
in those months a tornado unll arise? Admirers of the broad 
church may dislike the evangelical idea of conversion. They may 
quote the words respecting Saul: (Sam. x., 9) God gave him another 
heart. Because these words are once, exceptionally, so used, it does 
not follow that they are always so used. 

6, Usually figurative words are easily understood. For youth 
we may say the morning of life. We may say a man of gold, mean- 
ing wealth. A man loves his bottle, meaning his liquor, ^o law- 
yer could, plausibly, pervert such phrases. Kiddles and puzzles are 
intentionally obscure. Yet their answer usually removes all uncer- 
tainty. But this figurative sense of baptizo, applied to fifty exam- 
ples, exceeds our comprehension. It is claimed to express first stu- 
pefying, then intoxicating, next anger, and in course so many difier- 
ent freaks. We have read of india-ru bber consciences. We are at 
a loss how to describe these figures. No rhetorical name will apply. 
We have read of simile, of personification, of parable, of irony, of 
h}^erbole, and of metalepsis. What name shall be given to im- 
merse, when it expresses, figuratively, stupefying with opium? Phy- 
sicians might call it more like catalepsis. What name shall be given 
to a list of these fipjures? Or who ever used them? What name 
shall be given to immersing the flesh, after a blister, in a little 
milk? 

7, Figurative words, literally interpreted, are usually erro- 
neous, and frequently absurd. A man of gold, literally interpreted, 
would express not a living man, but a golden statue, perhaps Ne> 
buchadnezzar's golden image. Paul says, I have fed you with milk, 
and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither 
yet now are ye able. A literal reading would represent the Corin- 
thian christians as infants, andPaul as their nurse. Our Savior once 
said. Our friend Lazarus sleepeth. His disciples, mistaking his 
meaning, replied. Lord, if he sleep he shall do well. Then He said 
plainly, Lazarus is dead. He said also, (Matt, xxvi., 26) This is my 
body. Protestants agree in considering this word figurative. This 
represents my body. With reverence be it said : Protestants agree 
that the literal reading of these words is absurd. We cannot believe 
that God intended them as literal. Words which are really figura- 



34- NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

tive can rarely, if ever, be literally understood. But here we find 
nearly fifty examples of baptize which appear to indicate many things 
more, probably, than immersion in water. Every one of them is 
claimed as figurative immersion. Yet, as naturally understood, not 
one of them furnishes the appearance of error, or obscurity, or mis- 
take. They appear so plainly literal that a large portion of the best 
critics deem it incredible that they are figurative, or even so claimed. 
We apprehend this is the first instance of the kind, and doubtless the 
last, in the histoiy of the world. When we are convinced of this we 
can raise no more objections to a chance world. 

8, Many usages of words, at first figurative, become so com- 
mon and so completely established, that their figurative character is 
forgotten. Practically they are literal. Heaven at first expressed 
the sky or the visible heavens. We now apply it directly to our 
Father's House, the home of the blessed. Practically, now, this is its 
literal meaning. We may call such derivative meanings. But we may 
not insist that the sky, as the primitive meaning, is the present 
christian meaning. Idea at first signified the image in a looking- 
glass. Now, few, except Greek scholars, are aware of this. We may 
call it derivative, but it is no less literal, as expressing the view 
which the mind takes of some subject or object. Understanding once 
expressed the foundation of a building, or the pedestal to a statue. 
1*^0 w it expresses a faculty of the mind or the comprehension of a 
subject. Its original primitive meaning is so completely obsolete 
that even Webster does not mention it. Suppose we insist upon so 
reading Prov., vii., 7, as literal: I discerned a young man void of 
understanding or without any shoes. 

9, A short time since, the claim was equally positive that 
hapto signified only immerse. We might quote from the Septua- 
gint, that Nebuchadnezzar was {hapto) wet with the dew of heaven. 
This was useless. All such examples were figurative. Dr. Gale, in 
his enthusiasm for immersion, made this translation : " He baptized 
(immersed) a lake in the blood of a frog." Now, they readily 
admit that hapto had a secondary usage, as to dye, stain, color. We 
predict that, very soon, their christian candor will constrain them 
to relinquish this claim for baptizo. 

10, Baptist writers appear to us to appreciate the weakness of 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 35- 



this claim. They appear to us as very earnestly seeking some other 
confirmation. They resort to this, even when the other confirma- 
tion is very slight, hardly plausible. Take, for example, their claim 
of baptizing a blister in woman's milk. Why not claim this bap- 
tizing the flesh with such milk as figurative immersion? We hope 
our brethren will excuse us if we fail to appreciate either branch of 
this claim. We cannot decide between the merits of the two. It 
might require more than a solar microscope in the hands of Gabriel 
to perceive either. 

If forty-nine such classic examples with very little water or other 
fiuid, and usually with not a drop, may be called figurative immer- 
sion, then putting a little water upon the head as baptism, as a seal of 
the profession made, may, equally, be called figurative immersion. 
We ask of our brethren only the same liberty, precisely, which they 
claim. They claim that intoxication so completely includes the 
whole person, that we may fairly, but figuratively, say he is im- 
mersed in it. They claim that debts and taxes and conquering so 
include the persons or the nations, that they may be figuratively 
mentioned as immersed in these. We advance a similar claim. 
Adult baptism, in any scriptural mode, includes a sacred, public 
profession that the person will, from that moment, turn from sinful 
ways; that through life and through eternity, he will live for God. 
Not one of these forty-nine changes expressed, by classic baptizo, 
so completely includes the whole person, spirit, soul and body, as a 
profession of religion should include the whole person. We ask you, 
brethren, is not this true? Have we not as good reason to claim a 
profession by affusion, as figurative immersion, as you have to claim 
these forty -nine classic examples as figurative immersion? Is not 
the evidence in both cases of a similar kind? If you object to the 
small quantity of water which we use, these classic examples have 
usually none. We claim, simply, that our evidence is as good as 
yours. It is admissible to use the personal argument, (argumentum 
ad hominem) or the reductio ad absurdum, reducing your claim to ab- 
surdity. Except as a personal argument to convince our brethren 
of their permanent error, we should deem such reasoning a mere 
play of words. Classic baptizo furnishes very little evidence for 
immersion except drowning; but it furnishes much evidence against 



36. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

it. We trust our brethren will see and appreciate our reasons for 
totally rejecting their claim of classic baptizo as immerse and only 
immerse. 

2, We proceed to consider the usage of the Greek Church. Our 
brethren claim that the Greek Church may and do understand the 
fair construction of their own language. We thus reply in few 
words : 

1, During many ages, the Greek Church was a part of the 
Catholic Church. We know that the Catholics use sprinkling or 
aliusion. Their claim to infallibility prevents visible changes, even 
for their own interest. It would have been very difficult for the 
Catholic Church to change their mode of baptism. The Greek 
Church, from interested motives, seceded from the Catholics. It 
thus appears far more probable that the Greek Church introduced 
the change. 

2, Intelligent Protestants look unfavorably upon both these 
churches. Both have, in our view, too many superstitious rites and 
customs. Both exhibit too little intelligence, and too much of the 
form of godliness without the power. Baptism presents questions 
respecting which the wisest and best christians have long differed. 
If we call the Greeks half civilized, we may not err. Their 
bishops and priests fall below those of the Catholics in knowledge. 
In view of all portions of their character and circumstances, prob- 
ably intelligent persons, who have no interest in the question, 
would prefer the Catholic testimony to the Greek. But they would 
think very slightly of either 

3, Reference is here made to only those portions of the Greek 
Church who use the Greek language. These include chiefly Greece. 
In Turkey, a small part of the inhabitants use it. The American 
Board sustained Dr. King, in Greece, for many years. Our Baptist 
brethren sustained a missionary there for a time. As we under- 
stand, both were discouraged, and have abandoned the field. For 
evangelical religion, Greece appears more hopeless than almost any 
other portion of the world. China presents much more favorable 
prospects. Japan appears indefinitely more promising. In these 
circumstances we fail to appreciate the testimony of the bishops and 
priests of the Church in Greece. 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 37- 

4, Having called a witness, we must admit all his testimony. 

The Greek Church practice infant baptism. We do not quote 
their testimony of infant baptism, for we deem it not reliable. But 
their testimony is as good for infant baptism as it is for immersion. 
It is better. The Catholic and Greek churches agree for infant bap- 
tism. But they contradict each other respecting immersion. If we 
consider the testimony of one as four and that of the other as five, 
their united testimony is wortli» nine. But their contradictory tes- 
timony is worth only one, or the difference between four and five 
Like the false witnesses against our Savior, they agree not together. 

5, This claim includes the manifest difficulty of baptizing in- 
fants by immersion. A half-civilized people like the Greek Church 
may do this. Enlightened people are very reluctant to believe that 
our Savior appointed infant baptism by immersion. Like Abra- 
ham, ofiering his son as a sacrifice, they w^ould first ask a very 
specific command. It might prove, like the classic Greek, to be 
baptizing by drowning. 

Third, We propose to consider the Greek Idiom, or the words 
or phrases used for going to or into any locality, forgoing through it, 
or for coming from it or out of it. 

This is a Greek usage; but we trust the facts may be plain to 
the English reader. We ask careful attention; for, if our state- 
ments are correct, they make a final decision. When Matthew 
Mark, or any writer in the I^ew Testament, would mention that a 
person goes towards a certain locality, or near to it, but not into it, 
or within its limit, he uses the verb in its simple foi'm. John, iv., 
5, Jesus {erchomai) cometh {eis) to rather, near to) a city of Samaria 
called Sychar; He sat upon Jacob's well, outside the village. But 
when he would say (Matt., x., 11), into whatsoever city or town ye 
enter, he repeats or doubles the preposition eis. Instead of the 
simple verb erchomai, he uses the compound verb -Ei^erehomai. Every 
child ten years of age has occasion to express the distinction of going 
to, or near to, a house or other locality, and going into it. For this 
purpose the Greek usage is, if possible, more carefully and more 
uniformly specific than the English. The essential questions respect- 
ing the mode of baptism are these: Did they go to, or near to, the 



38. NEW AND DECISrVK EVIDENCE OF THE 

water, or did they go into the water? Did they come from the shore 
of the water, or out of the water? Tlie rule, that a noun signifying 
one is in the singular number, is neither more clearly defined, nor 
more uniformly observed, than the Greek usage now under con- 
sideration. Jerusalem, in Greek, is frequently plural. All lan- 
guages have their exceptional irregularities. Ereliomai^ Poreiiomai^ 
and Baino, are verbs signifying to go or come. For going into some 
locality, EisercAomaz is used one hundred and ninety-six times; for 
the same purpose EisporgMowaz is used seventeen times; for going 
into a ship, lEMhaino is used seventeen times ; for going out of various 
localities, XFohaino is used four times; -EKporeuomai is used thirty- 
four times, and wLerchomai is used two hundred and twenty times; 
for going through any locality, Dikbaino is used three times, and di- 
erchomai is used forty-three times. Total, so far, five hundred and 
thirty-four times. Without a single exception, they express the 
tact of going, respectively, into some locality, or through it, or out of 
it. For going out of one locality into another, the phrase is, by ne- 
cessity, slightly changed. What went ye out (out of the house or 
other locality) into the wilderness to see? As a second verb, went 
into the wilderness, is not used, eis or en cannot be prefixed to noth- 
ing. The phrase is as near this form as possible. 

In eight cases we find the word eso (within) used. Matt., xxvi., 
58: Peter followed him ->^ * * ,^^^ went [eso) in (or 
within). Mark, xv., 16: The soldiers led him (eso) into (or within) 
the hall, called Pretorium. John, xx., 26: The disciples were (eso) 
within. Eso is also used as an adjective, as, the inner man. 

In sixty-five passages we find exo (without). Matt., xxi., IT: 
lie went (e2;o) without the city. Matt., xxvi., 75: He went (exo) 
out, and wept bitterly. 1 Cor., v., 12: For what have I to do to 
judge them that are (exo) without (meaning without the church)? 
do not ye judge them that are (eso) within? 

We have, then, six hundred and seven passages in which some 
one of these words is used. Without a single exception, they are 
all thus used. Some apparent exceptions are the following: 

John, viii., 42: I proceeded forth, and came from (out of) God. 
Here we have this question. Do we understand the Trinity with 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. 39- 

sufficient precision to call this an exception? It corresponds to John, 
xiv., 11: Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me. 
Compare A'erses 18 and 26 of chap. xiv. 

See, also, John xiii., 3, and xvi. 27, 28, 30, and xvii., 8. Our 
Savior uses these phrases. He understood the Trinity as we in this 
world cannot. He also uses all but one of these peculiarly. In 
John, xvi., 28, the form is precise. 

We frequently use careful discrimination in these words. A 
sheriff in Maine may go, officially, to l!^ew Hampshire, but not one 
step over the state line. Mordecai came even to the king's gate, for 
none might enter the king's gate clothed in sackcloth. Gideon 
brought down the people to the water lo drink. They did not go 
into the water, in the sense of immersion. See Judges, vii., 5. 

In several cases eis is not thus repeated, and the explanation is 
an error in translation. Matt., ix., 23, 25: And when Jesus came 
to the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a 
noise. These professional mourners for the afflictions of others were 
outside of the room in which the maid was lying. In Mark, iii., 
19, we read: They went to (or near to) a house, not into a house. 
Eis is not repeated, because they went only near to a house. His 
friends ivent out (out of the house), to approach Him, while He was 
addressing the assembly. Luke, (vi., 17) relates the same incident, 
and says: He stood in a plain. He was evidently not within an in- 
closed yard, but probably a few rods distant from the house. This 
idiom, or usage, has three general limits : 

1, As a rule, it is limited to three verbs: Erchomai, Poreuo- 
mai, and Baino. Each signifies to go or come. Baino, in simple 
form, is not used in the Greek Testament; but ewbaino and other 
compounds are often used. Analogy suggests this usage with other 
verbs; but, as a uniform rule, it is limited to these three. In some 
few cases eis is prefixed to other verbs with a different design. 
More frequently this same meaning, into some locality, or out of it, 
is evident. Such is Greek usage respecting this limit. We did not 
make the limit; we did not make the Greek alphabet; but these are 
plain facts, and no person can change them. Matthew, and Mark, 
and Luke, and Paul, and even our Savior, used this limit as regu- 
larly as they used the words house or temple. 



40. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

2, Where the fact of motion into some locality, or out of it- 
is self-evident, this Greek usage is ommitted, precisely as in En- 
g'lish. We say, the merchant went to New York. The man came 
from Maine. He went to Ohio. He went to school, or to church. 
He has gone to heaven. Thou art gone to the grave. These mild 
phrases are used by every person, when the meaning is self-evident? 
An affectation of always saying into, or out of, in self-evident cases, 
would be noticed by every eai'. Other similar mild phrases are con- 
stantly nsed. The capitol is at Washington. The bank is at Boston. 
The mint is at Philadelphia. A friend sleeps in the grave. 

3, Such mild phrases are used where it is perfectly indilterent 
whether a person went into some locality, or went only near to it. 
Wishing to say certainly, I may say this: "John Smith came to my 
house, and told me that President Lincoln was killed." The ques- 
tion, whether he came into my house, or told me the sad news out- 
side the door, and near to my house, is not worthy of mention. So 
vv'e read, (Matt., ix., 1), He came to his own city. Perhaps his 
friend occupied a central house in the village, or perhaps he resided 
in the suburbs. This question is not material; Matthew did not 
attempt to decide it. The truant boy may say, '• I went to school," 
when he went only near to the door; he w^ished to deceive. But 
alike, in either English or Greek, this fact prevails: Where a per- 
son appreciates the slightest wish to inform others that a person 
went into a house, or into the water, or into any specified locality, or 
came out of it, unless the sense renders such fact self-evident, he in- 
variably mentions it. In Greek, he employs this idiom, or usage. 

In some cases the locality into which, or out of which, a per- 
son went, is not mentioned, but implied. Luke, xv., 28: He was 
angry, and would not go in (into the house); therefore came his 
father out and entreated him. Where we find either one of these 
verbs, ezserchomai, or ezsporeuomai, or e^wbaino, or the adverb eso^ 
we may be certain that the writer intended to express motion iyito 
(or, if eso, possibly within), some locality. Where we find exQYoho- 
mai, or eA;poreuomai, or a/j>c»baino, or the adverb exo^ we may be 
equally certain that the writer intended to express motion out of 
some locality. Exo usually expresses motion out of some locality; 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 4^ 



but may be read as without or outside of such locality. These are 
the proper words, and the only words to express such motion. Cir- 
cumstances may imply such motion. They may render it self- 
evident, but the words do not express it. 

We now ask patient attention to the following facts respecting 
the extent and uniformity of this usage. We respectfully invite 
any person who reads Greek, and especially our Baptist brethren, to 
give these facts their severest scrutiny: 

1, As already explained, we find these words and phrases used 
six hundred and six times, and invariably in the senses explained. 
If our brethren can furnish one exception, will they please quote the 
passage, and give us the chapter and verse. 

2, When either of these three verbs is used without the pre- 
fixed preposition, as explained ; also, when eis or ex is used, without 
such repetition, the writer usually did not intend to mention mo- 
tion into any specified locality, or out of it; but eso or exo may ex- 
press such motion. 

In a few exceptional cases, mentioning motion into some lo- 
cality, or out of it, without this usage, such motion is either self- 
evident or unworthy of mention. Usually, such locality is men- 
tioned, either by a proper name or by one of the familiar words, — 
house or city, heaven or hell. Incidental facts or circumstances may 
imply such motion ; they may render it self-evident, but the words 
do not say it. The herd (of swine) ran violently down a steep place 
into the sea. The verb {ormao) is not one of these three. Eis- 
ormao is not used in the Greek Testament; but the fact that they 
were choked in the waters, renders it self-evident that they went 
into the water. If Luke had mentioned that the eunuch was partly 
choked in the water, this would imply immersion. If he had men- 
tioned that on a hot day he found the water cooling and refreshing 
to his body, or that he changed his apparel for the purpose, any 
such fact might furnish the evidence. If we know beforehand that 
a certain church practise baptism by immersion, and then learn that 
they went to the river for baptism, this may imply immersion; but 
we have no such intimation in the IS'ew Testament. 

3, These words (g2serchomai, ezsporeuomai, embaino, eso, exer- 



42. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

chornai, apohaino^ or exo) are uniformly found where any occasion 
requires their use. Take, for example, the word enter. It is used 
in our version about one hundred times. As given by Cruden's Con- 
cordance, all these, except one (1 Cor., ii., 9), exhibit this usage. In 
two or three other cases the phrase is slightly informal, but essen- 
tially accurate. If another phrase can be found, either in the New 
Testament, or even in an English book of law, which approaches 
more nearly to mathematical uniformity, we would like to see it. 
The best writers seek variety in expression. They avoid a pedantic 
formality. In John, xx., 1, 8, we have a fine specimen of this 
usage. " The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene earl}- 
* * * unto the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh 
to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved. Peter 
therefore went forth (out of his previous locality), and that 
other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. And the other disciple 
did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping 
down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not 
in. Then cometh Simon Peter, * * -x- ^j^^j ^^^^ ^^^^ 
the sepulchre. Then went in also that other disciple which came 
first to the sepulchre." Here, this idiom is either used or omitted 
with careful discrimination, eight times in eight verses. Ko lawyer 
could express it more strictly. 

4, This usage is applied to all the difierent localities within 
the scope of the New Testament. Matt., vi., 6: When thou prayest, 
enter into thy closet. Matt., vii., 13: Enter ye in at {dia, through) 
the strait gate, for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that lead- 
eth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Matt., 
viii., 28; Coming out of the tombs. Matt., x., 4; Into SLny^eifp of 
the Samaritans enter ye not. Matt., xii., 5, How he entered into 
the house of G-od. Matt., xv., 11, 19: Not that which goeth into the 
mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this 
defile th a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Matt., 
xxiv., 38: Until the day that Noe entered the arh. Matt, xxv., 
23: Enter thou into the joy of the Lord. Matt., xxvi., 41: Watch 
and pray, that ye enter not into temptation. Matt., xxvii., 53: And 
came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy . 
city. Mark, i., 21: They went into Capernaum. Mark, i., 29*. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 43. 

Wlieu they were come out of the synagogue Mark, v., 8, 13: Come 
out of the ma7i^ thou unclean spirit. They entered into the swine. 
Mark, viii., 26: Neither go into the town. Luke, iv., 16: He went 
into the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Luke, xxiv., 26: Ought 
not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory. 
John, v., 4: Whosoever first, after the moving of the water, stepped 
in. We have not space for the critical question. The writer evi- 
dently used this idiom for going into the water. If any writer had 
so used it even once for going into the water for baptism, the case 
would difter. John, xviii., 1: Where was a ^ar(ien, into which he 
entered. John, xviii., 33: Then Pilate entered into the judgment 
hall again. Acts, iv., 15: When they had commanded them to go 
aside [exo) out o/the council. Acts, xxiii,, 16: He went and entered 
into the castle. Romans, v., 12: As by one man sin entered into the 
world. 1 Cor., v., 10: Then must ye needs go out of the world. 
Heb., vi., 19: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, 
* "^ * which entereth into that within the vail. Heb., ix., 
24: For Christ hath not entered into the holy places mad.e with hands, 
'" ^ * but into heaven itself . James, ii., 2: For if there 
come into your assembly sl man with a gold ring. James, v., 4: 
The cries of them which have reached have entered into the ears of 
the Lord. Rev., xiv., 15: Another angel came out of the temple. 
Rev., XV., 8: No man was able to enter into the temple. 

We thus read of going into the judgment hall four times, into 
the sepulchre four times, into the house of God four times, into life 
six times, into the kingdom of heaven six times, into the temple 
eight times, into the synagogue nine times, into the city ten times, 
into rest ten times, into the kingdom of God eleven times, into a 
ship seventeen times, and into a house fifty times. Probably w^e 
may read of going out of certain localities a similar number of 
times. Uxo is used with a similar variety of localities. These 
are a few specimens selected from six hundred. 

5, We are confirmed in the reality of this idiom by the trans- 
parently erroneous objections of our brethren. They raise these 
objections: Why is not going into heaven so mentioned? We reply, 
It is precisely so mentioned more than twenty times. Matt., xix., 



44- NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

23: A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. See 
also Mark, ix., 43, 45, 47, and x., 23, 25; Luke, xviii., 24, 25; John, 
iii., 5; Acts., xiv., 22; Heb., ix., 24. 

And why is not going into hell so mentioned? It is. Matt., 
vii., 13, is already quoted: Wide is tlie gate, and broad is the way, 
that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat. 
An ultra-TJniversalist of the old school, wdio insists that no such 
place as hell ever existed, might claim to evade this passage. The 
phrase, "These shall go away into everlasting punishment," exem- 
plifies one form of this idiom. It expresses going out of one place 
into another. As no second verb is used, eis cannot be prefixed to 
nothing. The phrase might have been extended : These shall go 
away (from the place of judgment), and shall go into everlasting 
punishment. This would have admitted the precise form of this 
idiom; as it is, this idiom is as nearly precise as possibe. 

But why is it not so mentioned, that Lazarus was carried into 
Abraham's bosom? Plainly because such statement would be ab- 
surd. This idiom is not once used where one person approaches 
another. Allusion is made to the Oriental mode of reclining upon 
a couch around the table. He then lying on (or near to) Jesus' 
breast. If eis had been thus repeated, our brethren might have 
found one passage in which eis is thus repeated without intending 
motion into any specified locality. We presume they would soon 
have made the discovery. Our version is here inaccurate. Indeed, 
this is the first time any sane person ever suggested that Lazarus 
was literally carried into Abraham's bosom. Lazarus was not the 
son of Jonah. We trust that our brethren will admit that motion 
into any locality, or through it, or out of it, is usually expressed by 
this usage. Such motion is certainly so expressed six hundred times. 
]S^ot one exception can be found among them. We find passages 
which, without this usage, depend upon the self-evident sense of the 
phrase to express such motion. Evidently the swine ran into the 
sea, for they were choked in the water. But, without thus depend- 
ing upon the self-evident sense of the passage, and without this 
usage, we ask for one verse in wdiich eis asserts or implies such mo- 
tion into any specified locality, or ex asserts motion out of it. We 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. • 45. 

ask for only one^ as a counterpart to six liundred. Here our breth- 
ren take issue witli us; tliey tell us that the primitive meaning of 
eis is into. When we differ, they appeal to the lexicons, ^q ac- 
cept their appeal. Among scholars, probably Passow's Lexicon will 
be admitted as good as the best. The American edition examined, 
was edited by Henry Drisler, of Columbia College, JSTew York City. 
Every lexicographer gives the primitive meaning first. He then 
gives other senses, chiefly according to frequency of usage. An 
unusual sense is given last. He thus defines eis, with reference to 
locality : 

A, Direction towards ; _^ 

B, Motion to ; 

C, Motion on; and only 

D, Motion into. 

We deem this a sufiicient and decisive reply to the claim that 
the lexicons give into as the primitive sense of eis. We will next 
proceed to show the New Testament usage of eis. The translators 
were not aware of this idiom. So far as they erred at all, respect- 
ing eis., they have too frequently rendered it by into. Thus we read 
thirteen times, that Jesus went up into a mountain. Some persons 
may have supposed that He went into a cave. The first example 
(Matt., iv., 8) will show the fact : Then the devil taketh him up into 
an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of 
the world, and the glory of them. A cave would have furnished a 
limited prospect of all these kingdoms. Like Moses on Mt. Pisgah, 
our Saviour was, in vision at least, upon the highest peak of the 
mountain. The translators employed the word into in a very loose 
sense. They never once said that He came down out of the 
mountain. 

6. We have these general facts respecting eis: Eis is used one 
thousand seven hundred and seventy times. By this idiom it is 
used about two hundred times to express motion into some locality. 
In only one case of six is eis, without such repetition, rendered as 
into. A list of these is erroneous. In every one o9 the remainder,' 
we depend upon the sense of the passage, or upon some circum- 



46. NEW AND DECISIVP: EVIDENCE OF THE 

stance mentioned, for the evidence of motion into anj house, tem- 
ple, water, or other locality. 

7, From these general facts respecting eis^ we turn to particu- 
lar examples. In a long list of passages, eis never was, and never 
can be, translated into. (Luke, viii., 23.) The same writer uses the 
same words, rendered in our version, they went down into the 
water. A storm of wind came down [eis) upon the lake. Was all 
this storm of wind immersed in the lake? We have precisely the 
same philological reasons for so reading it. 

Luke, xiii., 22: Journeying (eis) towards Jerusalem, but a few 
miles distant. 

Luke, xviii., 13 : The publican 4^ 4^ * would not 
lift up so much as his eyes {eis) to (rather, towards) heaven. Not 
into heaven. But smote {eis) upon his breast. 1 

John, xi., 31, 32, 38: She goeth {eis) unto (near to) the* grave to 
weep there. She fell dow^n {eis) at (near to) his feet. Jesus * 
* ^ Cometh {eis) to the grave. Neither went into the grave, 
before the stone was taken away. 

2 Cor., i., 16: And of you (or by you) to be brought on my 
way {eis) towards Judea. So far from carrying Paul into Judea, 
they doubtless left him a thousand miles distant; if only nine hun- 
dred, we will not differ. We can go towards the water, and within 
nine hundred miles of it, if our brethren will accept such an im- 
mersion. 

Kev., X., 5 : The angel * -^ ^ lifted up his hand 
{eis) to (towards) heaven. Not into heaven, unless his arm was very 
long. 

When eis is thus repeated, it invariably means into. In other 
cases, when used with reference to locality, the sense of towards, 
near to, or upon, underlies nearly all. So far from corresponding 
to into, or any one English preposition, it is rendered, in our version 
hj fourteen different words. In a more generic phrase for all cases, 
the words, with ifeference to, express the sense of eis. 

Matt., xviii., 15, 21: If thy brother trespass (m), with reference 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 4/. 

to thee, or against thee. Lord, how oft shall my brother sin (eis), 
with reference to nie, or against me, and I forgive him? 

Matt., xxvii., 30: They took a reed and smote him (m), with 
reference to, or on his head. A reed Tvould not sink very deep into 
His head. 

Mark, iii., 29: He that shall blaspheme {eis) against the Holy 
Spirit hath never forgiveness. 

Luke, xii., 21: So is he who layeth up treasure for himself, and 
is not rich [eis), with reference to God, or towards God. These are 
specimens of a very long list of passages in which eis is so used. 
No person ever printed a copy of the New Testament, inserting into 
for eis in all these. Any court w^ould plausibly acquit such a per- 
son of crime, on the plea of insanity. 

We might select a similar list of passages in whiich ex, by itself 
or without such a repetition, does not express motion out of any 
locality. 

Matt., XX., 23: To sit (ex) on (or at) my right hand, and {ex) on 
my left, is not mine to give. 

Matt., xxvii., 1: And bought {ex) w^ith them the potter's field. 

John, xiii., 4: He riseth {ex) from supper. 

Acts, xii., 7: His chains fell ofi {ex) from his hands, or from 
around his wrists. 

Rev., XV., 2: I saw them who had gotten the victory {ex) over 
the beast, and {ex) over his image, and {ex) over his mark, and {ex) 
over the number of his name. 

We add the following facts as confirming the certainty of this 
idiom. As a counterpart to these six hundred examples of this 
idiom, we find a still larger number of examples of erehomai used 
simply, or without the prefix of ezs, or dia, or ex, or of any prepo- 
sition. With one of these prepositions prefixed according to this 
idiom, the meaning of going into, or through, or out of some locality 
is invariably found. But with erehomai in its simple form, without 
such prefix, such meaning is found in perhaps one case of ten. 
Every one of these few is very plainly self-evident. Just as we say. 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 



the man went to France, lie came from England. Farther, the 
objections are drawn, not from the idiom itself, but from its omis- 
sions in the use of other verbs. We reply that all languages have 
their peculiarities. In Latin and Greek, many nouns which we call 
neuter are treated as masculine or feminine. In French all nouns 
are so treated. In Greek a neuter noun in the plural has a singular 
verb. Such are the facts. As well roll the ocean upon the top of 
Mount Ararat, where the ark rested, as to change these Greek 
usages. We must take these ancient languages as we find them- 
We would not deceive the public by misrepresenting some Greek 
usage. These decisive facts in Greek usage never came by accident. 
We have read of a man who cleared up forty acres of land by acci- 
dent. No person believes it. As a rule, this idiom is by New Tes- 
tament waiters limited to these three verbs. We need not ask why 
so limited, nor why they placed the letter Z as the sixth letter of 
the alphabet. The fact is indisputable. 

Fourth, We wall now consider the reality of this idiom, or 
usage, as established beyond any reasonable dispute. In its light 
we inquire whether Philip and the eunuch went into the water for 
baptism. Here is the decisive question. If so, the waiter would 
admit a strong probability of immersion. If not, immersion is dis- 
proved^ once for all. Or, if no such intimation is anywhere given, 
the case resembles the use of holy oil, and no meat on Friday. The 
passage does not say it. Perhaps infant baptism was, in fact, prac- 
tised ; though, as our brethren think, it is not mentioned. They 
very decisively reject every such claim, because not more plainly 
mentioned. We agree with this idea. We may show, in its place, 
how plainly it is implied. 

Here we find these unequivocal and undeniable facts. This 
idiom is found so constantly, so uniformly, and applied to so many 
different localities. It frequently appears where the sense would be 
self-evident without it. It is applied to going into the water for 
cure of disease. John, v., 4: Whosoever first * * ->t 
stepped in. 

In case of going into the w^ater for baptism, it was indispensa- 
ble to mention this fact. If they went into the water, immersion 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. 49. 

may be a plausible presumption. It is a reasonable rale of logic 
that a presumption cannot be raised upon a mere conjecture. The 
fact that they went into the water must be proved. Our brethren 
have ever relied upon this mention in our version. In their view, 
and also in reality, this was one of the corner-stones of their claim 
for immersion. With all due respect to our brethren, this corner- 
stone is laid upon the sand. These usual and only words which ex- 
press motion into any locality, or out of it, are no more in the New 
Testament, as applied to going into the water for baptism, than the 
sentence, Thou shalt eat no meat on Friday. The New Testament 
writers have used these words and phrases six hundred times, for 
every other locality within their scope. But, w^hen mentioning 
baptism, every writer has avoided these words as carefully as he has 
avoided purgatory and restoration to heaven. 

We read (Acts, viii., 38), They both {KATAbaino) went down 
(eis) to, or near to, the water. Luke might have said YJsibaino, as we 
read seventeen times for going into a ship; or yjsporeuomai, as we 
frequently find; or YAserchomai, as we find one hundred and ninety- 
six times applied to so many localities; or eso, They went down 
within the water. Either of these words would decide the question 
of going into the water. Having satisfied myself of the truth of 
this idiom, I turned with intense anxiety to ascertain whether it 
was used respecting baptism. The circumstance of going down out 
of the carriage, or of going a few feet down hill, was very trivial; 
it was self-evident. Yet Luke w^as careful to mention this. He 
also repeated it, by saying that they came up] but with equal 
caution he avoided every known word for saying they went into the 
water. 

We also read (Matt., iii., 16, Mark, i., 10, and Acts, viii., 39), 
(ANA^amo) They came up (apo or ex) from the water. They might 
have said Avohaino, as elsewhere; or -Exerchomai, as we find two 
hundred and twenty times; or exo, as so frequently. Either word 
would tell us, indisputably, that they came out of the water ; but 
every such word is avoided as carefully as wax candles. 

These verbs KATAhaino, go down, and ANA^amo, come up, are 
each used about eighty times. In not one case of ten is either used 



50. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

even to imply motion into any locality, or out of it. In not one 
case is either verb so used, unless where the sense renders it selt- 
evident. 

We add that no circumstance is mentioned, respecting the 
eunuch, which intimates immersion. 

Perhaps the next Catholic Council may decree especial honor 
to the parents of Paul. 

By an infallible explanation of Romans, xvi., 7, we may learn 
their names. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen. Every 
person understands that if Paul intended to say these were his 
father and mother, he would plainly so call them. Certainly, he 
did not so call them. If Matthew, Mark and Luke had intended to 
describe immersion, by saying they went into the water, and came 
out of the w^ater, they would plainly have so expressed these facts. 
If they had intended to inform all ages and nations that baptism 
was by immersion, they would have employed the usual words to 
ex23ress it. Certainly they have not so expressed it. Perhaps they 
used holy oil. 

To all such claims respecting baptism, this answer is sufficient: 
The Bible neither says nor implies it. Our Baptist brethren fully 
agree with us in this idea. So far as going into the water for bap-, 
tism is concerned, this answer is as sufficient for immersion as for 
holy oil. To our view, immersion is simply incredible. This G-reek 
idiom forbids the supposition. 

Fifth, We next inquire whether our Saviour was baptized in 
Jordan. Attention to this verse awakened great surprise. The 
same preposition {eis) is used. We object: 

1. In not one case of foi'ty is eis so used as in Jordan, or within 
a specilied locality. In one case of eleven, the word for angel is ap- 
plied to some man. A modern Sadducee might present the claim 
as scriptural that there is neither angel nor spirit. He would tell 
the world, for the seventeenth time, that the angel who appeared to 
Mary was surely some man. In Greek usage, his claim would be 
nearly four times as broad as the claim that eis signifies in Jordan. 
Xow, brethren, we would kindly ask this question : Is it reasonable 
for you to persist in such a claim? 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 51- 

2. "When, in one case of forty, eis is used as in Jordan, the 
meaning is frequently uncertain. In Matthew, ii., 23, we read. He 
dwelt m, or at, a city called Nazareth. The question whether He 
abode in a central house, or outside in the suburbs, is not decided. 

3. In other cases, eis is translated in, without implying or sus- 
pecting immersion or inclosure. Luke, xxi., 37: He abode in 
(rather upon) the Mount of Olives. 

John, xi., 7: Go wash {eis) in the pool of Siloam. The verb 
for wash is nipto, — to wash the face and hands. Yerse 11 shows 
the design: Go ^o the pool of Siloam and wash. The blind man 
was directed to stand hy the side of the pool and wash his eyes. Yet 
it was in the pool, as much as in Jordan. 

4. Eis is so used, as in Jordan, only where the sense is self- 
evident. It may signify at or near to Jordan. Indisputably, eis is 
neither the proper word, nor the usual word, for saying, m Jordan, 
in the sense of immersion. If Mark had understood immersion, he 
would have said eso, instead of eis. In Mark, xiv., 54, the same 
writer wished to mention the fact ,of being within, and said eso. 
And Peter followed Him afar off, even {eso) into (or within) the 
palace of the high priest. In the next chapter (xv., 16), he says 
again: And the soldiers led Him away (eso) into (or within) the hall, 
called Pretorium. We cannot doubt, that, if Mark had wished to 
inform the world that our Saviour was immersed in Jordan, he 
would have said eso. In the phrases so far considered, if Matthew, 
Mark and Luke had wished to conceal the fact of immersion, they 
have sl^lfully accomplished this. We respectfully ask our brethren 
to quote a single passage, from seventeen hundred and seventy, in 
which eis is thus used as in Jordan, meaning either immersion, or 
inclosure in a room, or any similar idea, without depending U23on 
the sense of the passage. The sense of this passage gives no such 
intimation. If we may assume immersion, without a particle of 
evidence, we may then interpret these passages in the light of such 
assumption. It is easy to prove any error in this way. 

5. The next verse confirms our view: And straightway coming 
up/rom the water, — as already explained. It was easy to say, com- 
ing out of the water, — but evidently Mark knew better. It appears 



52. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

to US a moral certainty that Christ and the eunuch were not baptized 
by immersion. 

Sixth, We inquire whether the multitudes baptized by John 
received immersion. Here the word is changed. Instead of m, en 
is used. Matt., iii., 6, 11: And were baptized of Him [en) in 
Jordan. I indeed baptize you {en) with water unto repentance, but 
He 4^ * -H- d\dX\ baptize you {en) with the Holy Spirit, 
and with fire. Mark, i., 5: And were baptized of Him {en) in the 
river of Jordan. 

John, i., 26, 31, 33: I baptize {en) with water. Therefore I am 
come baptizing {en) ayith water. He that sent me to baptize {en) 
with water, *->(■* ^j^g same is he who baptizeth {en) 
with the Holy Spirit. 

Acts, i., 5: John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
tized {en) with the Holy Spirit not many days hence. 

Acts, xi., 16: The same words. 

The whole question turns, first, upon the use of en. As only 
one mode of baptism was then practised, we must read all these pas- 
sages alike. Patchwork is here out of place. Un is used in two 
very difterent senses. 

1. Un designates the place of an action. In some cases 
definitely. A. man sowed good seed {en) in his field. But these are 
self-evident cases. In many other passages en is used very indefi- 
nitely. 

Matt., viii , 24: There arose a great tempest {en) in (rather, 
over) the sea. The same tempest is mentioned again, 

Luke, viii., 23: A ^reat storm of wind came down upon the 
lake. 

Mark, iv., 1 : He entered into a ship and sat {en) in (over) the 
sea. 

As He addressed the people standing on the shore. He doubt- 
less selected the highest part of the ship. No person supposes He 
touched the water. Mark, the same writer, mentions both these 
cases, — baptizing {en) in (or with the water of) Jordan, and the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 53- 

Saviour sat (en) over the sea. We respectfully suggest to our 
brethren that they conduct candidates for baptism over the deck of 
some ship or steamboat, or over some bridge. We might quote a 
very long list of passages in which en is so loosely used. 

2. Ml designates the article with which, or the means % which, 
an action is performed. 

Luke, xxii., 49: Lord, shall we smite (en) with the sword? The 
persons smitten would not be immersed in the sword. 

Luke, xi., 19, 20: If I (en) hy Beelzebub cast out devils, (en) 
hy whom do your sons cast them out? But if I (en) with the finger 
of God cast out devils. -se- * * 

Acts, xvii., 31: He shall judge the world in righteousness (en) 
hy that man whom he hath ordained. 

Romans, xvi., 16: Greet one another (en) with a holy kiss. 
This direction is found ^yq times, and en is used every time. 

1 Cor., iv., 21: ShaJl I come unto you (en) with a rod, or in 
love? 

Heb., ix., 25: As the high priest entered into the holy place 
every year (en) with blood of others. These words as decisively im- 
ply that the high priest went into the holy place immersed in the 
blood of these animals, as that these multitudes were immersed in 
Jordan. 

We trust that not one of our brethren will deny this plain 
philological fact. We know from Lev., xvi., 14, 15, that he took 
just sufficient blood to sprinkle with one finger. 

In Matt., xxiii., 16-22, we find en so used thirteen times in 
seven verses Whoso shall swear (en) hy the temple, it is nothing; 
but whosoever shall swea^; (en) hy the gold of the temple, he is a 
debtor. And whosoever shall swear (en) by the altar, it is nothing; 
but whosoever sweareth (en) by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty 
^ * * Whoso shall swear (en) by the altar, sweareth (en) 
by it, and (en) by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear (en) 
by the temple, sweareth (en) by it, and (en) by Him who dwelleth 
therein. And he who shall swear (en) by heaven, sweareth (en) by 
the throne of God, and (en) by Him who sitteth thereon. 



54. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

Every critic is aware that en is constantly used in this sense, 
if these multitudes were really immersed by John, en, so ambiguous, 
was very unsuitable to inform the world of it. The trumpet gave 
a very uncertain sound. JEn water is as naturally rendered with 
water — by sprinkling — as in water by immersion. It was easy to 
use the familiar word {eso) within, and at once decide the question. 
If Matthew and Mark and Luke and John had been as completely 
non-committal as some ingenious politicians, they might have used 
these evasive words. But it is easy to decide which mode was used 
by John. 

In the beginning of John's ministry he told them (Matt., iii., 
11), I indeed baptize you (en) with water unto repentance, but 
* ^ * He shall baptize you {en) with the Holy Spirit, and 
with fire. In the New Testament, the idea of being in fire has a 
fearful significance. Our version is unquestionably correct, in say- 
ing ivith fire. 

The passage in Acts, i., 5, is still more decisive. For John 
truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized {e,n) with the 
Holy Spirit not many days hence. Here we know the reference. 
About ten days after our Saviour's last direction and ascension to 
heaven, was the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit appeared, in 
some visible form, and sat upon each of them. If language has any 
definite meaning, this passage cannot, reasonably, be read as im- 
mersed in the Holy Spirit. When we see an edition of the New 
Testament printed, inserting these passages as in the Holy S^^irit, 
and in fire, — also inserting in the long lists of passages, which 
might be quoted, the word in for en, — we shall be convinced that 
there is now one thing new under the sun. 

Our ])rethren have begun a Baptist version of the New Testa- 
ment. They have inserted the word immerse for baptize. Their 
work is only begun. They need to make several very long lists of 
changes in the common version, where m and en are used. We re- 
spectfully request them to lay aside their standing assertion that we 
admit that the apostles baptized by immersion. Some individuals 
liave taken that view, not being aware of this idiom. Now, to those 
who have carefully investigated this evidence, the argument for 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 55. 

sprinkling appears as decisive as the battlements of Gibraltar. We 
expect very soon to return tlie compliment. Onr brethren have 
ever evinced a commendable desire to practise baptism according to 
Scripture. So mnch light is now thrown upon the question, many 
of them will admit that sprinkling was the mode. We can mention 
it as often as convenient. 

Seventh, We proceed to consider the incidental evidence for 
baptism in three passages. 

1. John, iii., 23: John was baptizing in JEnon, ♦ * * 
because there was much water there. 

This question arises : Did John select ^non because there was 
water sufficient for immersion, or because the multitude, with their 
horses and other beasts, required much water for drink and com- 
mon uses. We assign the following reasons for the latter opinion: — 

A. We have already a moral certainty that baptism was not 
by immersion. 

B. This view of our brethren, like the sword with two edges, 
cuts both ways. John was baptizing in JEnon, because, in other 
places, he could not find sufficient water for immersion. We pre- 
sume he could not find it, especially in the dry season. Mill-ponds, 
raceways, or canals sufficient for immersion, were scarcely known. 
It has ever appeared incredible to us, that our Saviour would select 
a mode of baptism so difficult for half the world. If the Bible says 
so, we cordially submit. Our brethren have told us, a thousand 
times, they find no such difficulty. As many times they have quoted 
this passage as evidence of immersion. They have this fatal dilem- 
ma. Either, as we believe, this does not refer to the mode of bap- 
tism at all, but to water for drink and common uses, or it tells us 
this decisive difficulty does exist, for John found it. It tells us this 
difficulty was so great and so notorious, that the apostle John, his 
namesake, put the fact on record for all nations. They must not be 
surprised if they find the same. 

C. We find in the Bible numerous examples of thus seeking 
water. Palestine, especially in the dry season, is described as a dry 
and thirsty land, where no water is. ^Enon was, probably, in the 



56. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

valley of the Jordan. It might have been near the river, or several 
miles distant. Lot chose this same plain for the same reason, be- 
cause it was well watered. (Gen., xiii., 10.) Was Lot a Baptist, so 
many ages before the word baptism existed? Lot sought the com- 
mon uses of water in that same valley. So Hagar and Ishmael 
(already seventeen years of age) nearly perished with thirst. Gene- 
sis, xxi., 14-20: An angel came from heaven to show them where to 
iind water, even for drink. This was near the same place in which 
Philip baptized the eunuch, and in similar desert land. 

liobinson's map, accompanying his first "Researches in Pales- 
tine," gives several temporary streams, or rivulets, near this south 
road from Jerusalem to Gaza, through the desert. Gaza is not in 
the desert. (Acts, viii., 26.) But he gives not one permanent 
stream on or near this road. Yet he wrote his journal from day to 
day, while passing through this same road. This fact renders the 
immersion of the eunuch still more improbable. He might have 
gone to JEnon, — not over a hundred miles. When the attention of 
travellers and explorers is called to this question, it will, probably, 
appear another moral certainty against immersion. 

2 Kings, iii., 9: There was no water for the host, nor for the 
cattle that followed them. 

Isaiah, xii., IT: When the poor and needy seek water, and there 
is none. 

In a case similar to that of John, our Saviour said: I have com- 
passion on the multitude, because they have continued with me 
now these three days, and have nothing to eat. (Matt., xv., 32.) 

An assembly of six thousand persons, for three days, would 
require much water for common uses. Would not our Saviour 
select a locality where water for drink and common uses was plenty? 
We doubt not John would do the same. A similar necessity for 
water now prevails. How many times has the place for a camp- 
meeting, or for any large assemblage, for several days, been selected 
near some creek or river? In some localities, wells furnish plenty of 
water. But we ask this question: Did a sane man ever select a 
place for any large collection of people, for several days, without 



M O D E O F B A P T I SM. 57. 

carefully considering the supply of water? Until settlers have dug 
wells, many western prairies furnish no water for twenty or forty 
miles. The writer has travelled, in Iowa, thirty-six miles, along a 
public road, without finding water. 

D. This is a plain rule of interpretation. When a passage 
fairly admits two different constructions, either construction is use- 
less to support a favorite opinion. We read (Gen., i., 26), God said, 
Let us make man in our image. Many consider the words us and 
our as referring to different persons in the Trinity. 

Probably they are correct. Yet the words possibly admit a 
difierent construction. Editors, rnlers, and others, say we, to avoid 
saying I. Probably this usage was not introduced in the first ages 
of the world. Ahasuerus used it. As this may possibly be the de- 
sign, no one quotes this passage as evidence of the Trinity, li we 
had no better evidence than this, it would avail little. So, if either 
of the facts mentioned above furnish an^/ probability of selecting 
^npn, because water was needful for common uses, it is vain to 
quote the passage for immersion. A claim for sprinkling might be 
based upon other passages as probable as this. 

/ 

2. We will next consider the incidental evidence derived from 

Eom., vi., 4: Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into 
death. (Compare Col., ii., 12.) Our brethren consider these pas- 
sages as referring to the /node of baptism by immersion. We con- 
sider them as referring to the profession made by baptism, without 
reference to the mode. We profess to become dead to the sinful 
ways of the world, — to be even buried, or completely and finally 
separated from them. Let us inquire with humility and candor, 
and Christian good-will, w^hich of these opinions is true: — 

A. As before, we deem it already a moral certainty that bap- 
tism was not by immersion. 

B. The next verse forbids the idea of allusion to immersion. 
We are planted in likeness of Mis death. Suppose a painter should 
represent the scene. A person appears erect, hanging upon the 
cross, in likeness of our Saviour's death. Is he at the same moment 
buried ? 



58. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

Paul did not probably foresee this injurious controversy. But 
the Holy Spirit, who inspired him, did foresee it. We are at a loss 
to conjecture how he could, by anticipation, have guarded against 
the Baptist construction of this passage more decisively than he has 
in these words. 

3. Paul's design corresponds to our view. How shall we, who 
are in heart, in spirit, and by sacred public profession, dead to sin, 
live any longer therein? The idea of being, as Christians, dead to 
sin, pervades tlie New Testament. Burial is but earnestly express- 
ing this trait of Christian character. Paul begins with the figure, 
dead to sin. For variety, he once uses the word buried. 

But he returns immediately, and continuously, to the word 
dead. He returns to the word dead in the same clause with the 
word buried. ''Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into 
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead (to a new and 
heavenly life,) even so ive also should walk in newness of life." In 
verse 6 he uses the word crucified.. Our old man is crucified with 
Him. Our brethren will agree with us, that one of the greatest 
dangers in the Christian life arises from excessive conformity to the 
sinful customs of the world. Hence we are so frequently exhorted, 
be not conformed to this world. We ask. Is not this a fair and 
reasonable view of this passage? 

4. The interpretation of our brethren has led them to a singu - 
lar misapprehension respecting one of the great and admitted facts 
of the gospel. They tell us that baptism represents the death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ. They do not claim that the 
bible has so said. But they see a resemblance to their mode of 
baptism. The bible tells us,- so many times, that the communion 
service represents the death of Christ. Baptism represents con- 
version, or turning and cleansing trom sin. ^'I will put my laws 
into their hearts^ and in their minds will I write them." Hence- 
forth the person professes that by divine grace he will live for God 
and truth, and for the salvation of souls 

The facts that baptism represents conversion, and that the 
Lord's supper represents the death of Christ, are admitted by all 
evangelical Christians. Our brethren will not plainly and directly 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. $g. 

deny them. Their own hymn books mention baptism as represent- 
ing conversion. But the experience of the Christian world will 
verify the following idea: With an earnest desire to confirm our 
own opinions, we may find many such accidental coincidences, at 
least in words, with our own opinions. The Holy Spirit never in- 
tended them. Writers on prophecy find many accidental coinci- 
dences, first with one, then witli another. Afterwards tliey find 
the same passages coiniiiding with a third event, then with a seventh. 
Our Episcopal friends quote this passage: He went through Syria 
and Cilicia, confirming the churches. How far their view of con- 
firmation is scriptural, we do not pause to. inquire. Our Baptist 
brethren agree with us in rejecting it. As w^e think. Episcopalians 
have, insensibly, made up the practice of confirmation. We think 
Paul never heard of it. When they find this coincidence, it appears 
to us only accidental, and exists only in words. 

Sometimes our brethren tell us of John the Baptist, as if this 
name was used in the present denominational sense. They forget 
this self-evident implication. If John the Baptist practised im- 
mersion and the apostles practised allusion, John might possibly 
have been called the Baptist by way ot distinction. Even this would 
have admitted affusion as all right. The apostles acted by our 
Saviour's personal direction. 

We would kindly say this to our brethren: We are as certfiin 
that our construction of this passage is correct, as you can be that 
your construction is correct. Neither of us believe in the infalli- 
bility of any mere man. Is it not barely possible that the error 
may be on your side? Have not you, insensibly, but really, first 
imagined immersion, of which Paul never heard? Have you not, 
then, found a similar accidental coincidence, in one word, with your 
own opinion ? Suppose a new sect should claim baptism by passing 
under the fire. Could they not claim 1 Cor., x., 2, as furnishing 
equal evidence? And were all baptized unto Moses in (under) the 
clouds of fire. We doubt not the sincerity^ of your opinion, that 
baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
But will any intelligent person, who believes in conversion, deny 
that baptism represents conversion ? The candidate professes such 
conversion by his baptism. In reality, can your claim avail any 



6o. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

farther than to mislead the unthinking? 

5. We may add, as before, a passage which admits two differ- 
ent constructions, furnishes little evidence for either. 

3. We will mention another branch of incidental evidence. John 
the Baptist baptized immense numbers. We thus read, Matt., iii., 
5: Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the re- 
gion round about Jordan, and were all baptized by him. We do 
not claim that every Jew thus received baptism. But the estima- 
tion of one in ten would appear as low as this verse can fairly be 
understood. We find many persons now who, like Gallio, care for 
none of these religious things. But more than one in ten have re- 
ceived baptism. Jerusalem, in time of our Saviour, contained four 
hundred and sixty synagogues. Only some very large city contains 
so many church buildings. Possil^ly New York may exhibit this 
number. Josephus represents the population of this region as very 
large. Forty years later eleven hundred thousand persons perished 
in Jerusalem, or were made captive. Instead of estimating the 
total number of Jews at ten times this number, w^e will say three 
times, or three millions. Three hundred thousand must receive 
baptism, or fifteen hundred every day for two hundred days. If 
for heat, or cold, or rain, or snow, or rest, or for any other engage- 
ment, he should omit one day, he must double the number the next 
day. The Bible mention s^snow in that region at least twenty -five 
times. John's raiment of camel's hair was not an India rubber-suit. 
No living man could baptize in the river, by immersion, such a 
number. Long continuance in water weakens and exhausts and 
overcomes any person. Man can no more remain so permanently 
in cool water than fish can so remain on dry land. We will mention 
two w^ell known facts as evidence of this: Any good swimmer can 
easily swim, in still water, eighty rods in fifteen minutes. Also 
any able man can, for once, continue at active labor for twent3^-four 
hours. With immediate rest he will sustain no serious injury. Mr. 
Boy n ton attempted to swim from Calais to Dover. To take advan- 
tage of the current he must swim twenty-three miles. With an 
india-rubber suit, equal to a boat, a man may safely float over this 
'strait. But, without some such aid, no living person can safely 
swim through alone. Among a thousand good swimmers perhaps 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 6l. 

one might live to reach the opposite shore. Mr. Eojnton ventured 
to attempt this only by the side of a steamboat, into which he could 
be taken at any moment. Any able man could easily endure so 
much muscular eftbrt on dry land. Also at the Hawaiian Islands, 
about 20 deg. Latitude, the water is warm. Till recently their un- 
civilized habits interposed little objection to swimming. This re- 
mark was made, As well drown a whale as drown a native of these 
islands. About thirty persons, men and women, started in a sail 
boat for another island. A gale overturned their boat. They must 
swim twenty-five miles. Only one lived to reach the shore. This 
one was a woman. Long continuance in water, even when warm, is 
very weakening. At the Hot Springs in Arkansas the medical rule 
is this : After reducing the water to the agreeable temperature oi 
ninety to ninety-five degrees, a person must remain in this warm 
water only three minutes. A glass filled with dry sand is placed on 
the bath tub. It runs down in three minutes. See Harper's Mag- 
azine for January, 1878, article Hot Springs of Arkansas, page 199. 

Now let us imagine for a moment that only one of thirty were 
immersed by John in Jordan. He must still immerse five hundred 
every day for two hundred successive days. We deem this opinion 
safe. Probably all intelligent persons w^ho have no special interest 
in the question will concur. Before any man could complete this 
work he would be dead. Let us then thus interpret this verse, "Je- 
rusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan/' 
Matthew intended to say one person of a hundred. John must still 
immerse one hundred and fifty persons every day witliout exception 
for two hundred days. This appears to us impossible. Is a single 
instance on record in which one and the same Baptist minister im- 
mersed one hundred or even fifty persons in the open river in one 
day? Trusting to memory for names and dates the opportunity oc- 
curred at Sedgwick, Maine, about May, 1805. We recollect a sketch 
of it from the pen of Dr. Baldwin. We think ninety persons were 
baptized by immersion in one day. But we recollect no informa- 
tion how many ministers participated in the w^ork. We saw in 
Providence, Khode Island, less than thirty persons immersed at the 
same time and place. But the labor was divided between four men. 
If the ninety persons at Sedgwick had all been immersed by one 



62. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

minister we presume tlie work would have occupied several days. 
Yet the immersion of ninety in one day is very different from the 
immersion of one hundred and fifty every day for two hundred suc- 
cessive days. Did any man ever labor thus actively in the open 
river up to his waist for two hundred successiv^e days without an 
india-rubber suit or some similar protection? When any man has 
accomplished such a feat we may be convinced of its possibility. 
If the soldiers of Alexander had thus waded for two hundred days, 
few, if any, would have survived. Probably a classic baptism 
would have been completed till the thousand years were finished. 
Even if some aquatic Samson could endure such hardness, while 
millions would fail, this would not imply that John could do it. 
John did no miracle. This is far short of the claim that every 
minister could endure it. The best proof of all is to do i t. A 
Baptist minister from Mississippi personally admitted to the writer 
that he induced the worst sickness of his life by immersing some 
persons. Also an intimate friend of the writer disabled himself 
trom preaching for the remainder of his life, by immersing a per- 
son in cold weather. Even if any deem it possible that some ex- 
traordinary man could survive immersing so many in the open 
river, it must be admitted so difticult as to be very improbable. 

Eighth, Baptizo'as used in the Greek Testament. One great 
question remains, Does baptizo, as used in the Greek Testament, 
signify immerse or sprinkle? Let us as christian brothers inquire, 
What is true? We have seen that the Xew Testament usage of 
many words differs greatly from the classic usage. The real ques- 
tion is this. How does the New Testament use baptizo, and the 
corresponding noun haptismos or haptisma? 

1. The evidence that, in New Testament usage, baptizo signi- 
fies either immerse or sprinkle, is based, directly and especiallj^, 
upon these phrases which we have considered. If we knew that 
Christian baptism was by immersion, we should so far understand 
the New Testament usage of baptizo as immerse. Or, if w^e knew 
that baptism was by sprinkling, sve should understand the New^ 
Testament usage of baptizo as sprinkle. Various passages mention 
the baptism of one or more persons, and, with greater or less plain- 
ness, describe the mode. In not one of these passages do we find 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. 63. 

the slightest intimation of immersion. We respectfully ask our 
brethren to name one such passage which does furnish any reason- 
able intimation of immersion. To us it appears a moral certainty 
that, in fact, not one such baptism was by immersion. With equal 
certainty, baptizo, in Christian usage, does not signify immerse. 
We may indeed supplement these facts by several verses, in which 
either the verb baptizo, or the noun baptismos or baptisma, is used 
with some other design, and not for Christian baptism. 

Our brethren have ever, and greatly, relied upon the phrases, 
thei/ went into the water, they came out of the water, Jesus and the 
multitudes were baptized in Jordan. IN'ow all this is not exactly 
destroyed. It is completely reversed. 

It is a moral certainty that they did not go into the water, and 
that Jesus and the multitudes were not baptized in elordan. The 
specific words used six hundred times for an action performed, in 
or within a certain locality, or for going into any locality, for going 
through it, or coming out of such locality, are, carefully and invari- 
ably, avoided. It is too late to fall back upon classic baptizo. In 
forty-nine cases this implies neither immersion nor any thing re- 
sembling immersion. In lifty three more it expresses drowning, 
killing, or destroying. In only eight of on§ hundred and fourteen 
does it express immersion, without essential injury. These few 
were not injured, simply because a fishing net and a pickle can not 
be injured by a long continued immersion. In seven cases, of 
these eight, any living person would have been drowned. These 
phrases, they went to the water, and came from the water, and in 
Jordan, have no longer the support of classic baptizo. Their evi- 
dence now stands separately upon its own merits. In not one of 
these passages do we find the slightest intimation of immersion. 

We now proceed to consider these other passages. 

A. Matt., iii., 11, He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit 
and with fire. Our version here appears correct and precise. Bap- 
tising or immersing in fire appears incredible. Matthew (this 
same writer) thus relates our Saviour's words: Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire. The passage appears to express this 
idea. ^5^^shall baptize (inspire, enlighten, and guide) you with the 



64. NEW AND DECISIVK EVIDENCE OF THE 

Holy Spirit. He will introduce you to a new sphere ot action, and 
will, at the day of Pentecost, crown you with some visible appear- 
ance as of lire. This view is confirmed by the next example, which 
is more uni vocal. 

B. Acts, i., 5, compare Acts, xi., 16, Ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Spirit not many days hence. In Luke, xxiv., 49, we read 
our Saviour's direction to the apostles: But tarry ye in the (iity of 
Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high. Ten days 
after our Saviour's ascension was the day of Pentecost. Some visi- 
ble form, representing the Holy Spirit, sat upon each of the apostles. 
We remember that at our Saviour's baptism the Holy Spirit de- 
scended upon Him in the form of a dove Probably the same form 
was here repeated. An appearance of fire in some such visible 
form resting upon the head (or possibly upon the shoulder) of each 
bears little resemblance to immersion. To us it appears indisputa- 
ble that this visible form represented baptism by the Holy Spirit. 
It was NOT a rushing, mighty wind. We think that only the strong 
influence of a favorite theory induces any person to diiier. We 
find neither appearance nor probability that a gale of wind was 
blowing at that time. Suddenly there came a sound from heaven 
as of a rushing, mighty wind. The sound resembled the sound of a 
mighty wind. 

We read of manna (Ex., xvi., 31, Num., xi., T,) It was like 
coriander seed. And the taste was like wafers made with honey. 
And the color thereof as the color of bdellium. We do not under- 
stand that the manna was coriander seed, or waters made with 
honey, or bdellium. The very words, one article like another or as 
another forbids the claim that it is the other. The sound as of a 
rushing mighty wind forbids the claim that it was a wind. Prob- 
ably, in fact, there was no wind in the temple sufficient to raise a 
ribbon. President Edwards makes this remark: "Superior knowl- 
edge, and even omniscient knowledge and wisdom, do not enable a 
person to see evidence where there is none. They only enable him 
to see, with great clearness and certainty, that there is none." We 
add they can enable a person to see evidence only precisely as it is ; 
not as our wishes or previous opinions require. It gives a strict 
severity of logic and observation. 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 65. 

C. Luke, xi., 38, And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled 
that he had not first washed (literally, that he had not first baptized 
himself) before dinner. 

In explanation of this verse, we tnrn to the parallel passage, 
Mark, vii., 2-4: And when they saw some of his discij^les eat bread 
with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fault. 
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands 
oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they 
come from the market, except they wash (literally, except they bap- 
tize themselves), they eat not. And many other things there be, 
which they have received to hold, as the washing (literally, the bap- 
tism) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. To us this 
fact appears evident. Baptizing themselves consisted simply in 
washing the hands. Probably every intelligent person would concur 
in this opinion, unless his views of baptism constrained him to 
difler. We will soon show how much water they used in either. 
Every critic will admit that the word tables is inaccurate. The 
Greek word {klinoi) means couches, usually stuffed with cotton, upon 
which they reclined around the table.' Not one example of klinoi, 
as tables, can be given. In convents, it is understood the nuns 
sprinkle their beds every night with holy water. But they use a 
very small quantity. It is incredible that the Jews should immerse 
their couches before each meal. Fortunately orthodox Jews still 
retain this custom. Here it is easy to ascertain the facts. Before 
each meal, and also before beginning any important piece of work, 
they ritually thus baptize themselves. They wash their hands. In 
a list of cases they sprinkle the article used. They use less water 
than may be put upon a silver five-cent piece. Such was tlie testi- 
mony of a converted Jew, given to the writer. Mark calls such 
sprinkling as this baptism. 

Here we fin<J that baptizo signifies sprinkle with a very small 
quantity of water. We have this evidence that these verses admit 
no other construction. The public have been favored with several 
editions of the New Testament, which professed to translate bap- 
tizo, uniformly, immerse. But, as we understand, they have 
usually, in silence, omitted these verses. Trusting to memory 



66. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

Alexander Campbell respected the Bible too sacredly to so trans- 
late them. We ask our brethren, Have you not insensibly mistaken 
these verses? 

D. 1 Cor., X., 2: And were all baptized unto Moses, in the 
cloud, and in the sea. Our brethren claim immersion here, in this 
way. The wall of waters was on each side of Israel, and the cloud 
was over them. We will suppose these scenes painted. In the first 
picture, we see Israel encamped near the shore. The cloudy pillar 
of fire^ (not watery vapor) is high, as clouds usually are. This 
cloud was before Israel, towards the sea. But it passed over them, 
and stood between them and the pursuing Elgyptian'army. In the 
picture, it appears, at the moment, over Israel. Another picture 
represents Israel two or three hours later. They are in the open 
channel of the sea, on dry land. They walk two or three hundred 
abreast in a procession six miles long. 

Like Lot, they are hastening through.. One of a thousand 
touches the wall of waters with fingers or elbow. The pillar of fire 
is not now over Israel, but far back between Israel and the Egyptians. 
One came not near the other all that night. (Ex., xiv., 20-30). If 
we could suppose the cloud sufiiciently low to be reached with the 
hands, it was far back. A few, like Lot's wife, might linger so far 
behind as to touch it ; but a large portion were several miles dis- 
tant. At one time, Israel were, for a moment, under the cloudy 
pillar of fire ; but not in the sea. Two or three hours later, they 
are in the open channel of the sea, on dry land. But they are not 
now under the cloud. A strong east wind renders the air slightly 
damper than many summer evenings. A walk through a tunnel 
under the river, at Chicago or London, would be in the water, in 
nearly similar form. So would a baptism while inclosed in an india- 
rubber garment. Some infer from Ps. 77, that thunder and rain 
accompanied this passage through the Red Sea. If so, the rain 
sprinkled Israel. 

Now, brethren, we ask some other questions. We would ask 
them as Christian brethren should ask each other. Come, now, and 
let us reason together. Does baptizo here signify immerse? Does 
it not, unequivocally, signify sprinkle? If we have erred respecting 



MODE OF BAPTISM. d'J . 

this passage, can you point out our errors? If Mark and Luke and 
Paul could have taken lessons of you, would you not have acted the 
kind part of Aquila and Priscilla? Would you not have expounded 
unto them the way of immersion more perfectly? Will you accept 
such a baptism? Till you do so we shall be reminded of the words 
of IVIoses (Deut., xxxii., 31,) For their rock is not as our rock, even 
our enemies themselves being judges. 

E. Heb., ix., 10. Our brethren raise this question: If baptizo 
signifies sprinkle w^hy not say rantizo? This, univocally, signifies 
sprinkle. We hope to furnish an indisputable answer. When our 
Saviour said Simon, why did He not say Peter? When Matthew (ix., 
9,) mentions his own name, why did he not say Levi; or when Mark 
(ii., 14,) and Luke (v., 27,) mentions him in the same words, why did 
they not say Matthew? Good writers avoid a tiresome mathematical 
uniformity of expression. In 2 Cor., xii., 2, 4, Paul thus speaks: 
I knew a man in Christ * * * caught up to the third 
heaven, he was caught up into Paradise. Probably no critic will 
deny that Paul used the w^ords third heaven and Paradise merely for 
variety, but referring to the same place or state of happy residence. 
Our Saviour calls the same place My Father's House. It is called 
the Holy City. 

We submit the following claim, and we propose to prove it 
beyond reasonable dispute. Baptizo and rantizo are here, and else- 
where, used interchangeably, as practically synonymous terms. Let 
us, like the Bereans, search the scripture, and see if these things are 
so. If this claim be true, the mode of baptism is decided to be 
sprinkling or afiusion. 

The quotation above made (Heb., ix., 10,) thus reads: Which 
stood only in meats and drinks and divers w^ashings, (literally divers 
baptisms) and carnal ordinances. These divers (or various) baptisms 
refer to the ritual purifications prescribed in the ceremonial law, 
Paul is here mentioning, not Christian baptism, but these ritual 
purifications. He employs the word baptisms according to its com- 
mon usage, and calls these ritual purifications baptisms. We now 
inquire what were the modes and forms of these divers baptisms? 

About forty times these ritual purifications or divers baptisms 
rwere called sprinkling, and every one of them was precisely by 



68. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

sprinkling. Not one was more or diiterent. Frequently it is thus 
mentioned, He shall sprinkle of the blood with his finger. The 
practice under this precept was very naturally this, The priest 
dipped the end of one fore-finger in the blood and thus sprinkled 
it. Six times we read of putting some of the blood upon the right 
ear, and upon the thumb of the right hand, of certain persons. 
This was a very slight affusion. Nine times we read of putting 
some (a very little) of the blood upon the horns of the altar. Some 
times we read of rinsing the hands or some vessel with water. We 
also frequently read of washing the hands or face or feet. We find 
seventeen times the word purifying by such slight affusion. When 
the plague was begun (Num. xvi., 47) Aaron put on a little incense 
and thus purified them or made an atonement for them. We read 
thirty-six times of thus using a little incense. Fifty times we read 
of anointing by putting on a little oil. This anointing was done 
to introduce a person into some new sphere, perhaps into the ofiice 
of high priest or king, just as adult baptism introduces a person 
into the Christian church. The tabernacle, the laver, and other 
articles were thus anointed or consecrated to a religious use. Sixty 
times the word clean or cleanse is similarly used as one of the divers 
baptisms. We thus find more than two hundred examples of these 
ritual purifications which were indisputably by afiusion. Such div- 
ers baptisms were daily and hourly practised. They were as familiar 
to Israel as the tabernacle itself. They had no more resemblance to 
immersion in water than our baptism by affusion has. 

In Acts, xxi., 30-40, we read that Paul was purified in the 
temple,* vainly hoping to avoid arousing the opposition of the Jews. 
We are not precisely informed how many of these divers baptisms 
or ritual purifications he received. But he was occupied in the 
work seven days. Were all these by immersion ? Probably no per- 
son ever imagined that even one of them was by immersion. It is 
easy, as in another case, now to inquire of orthodox Jews, or of the 
Jewish Messenger in New York city. 

As a counterpart to all these two hundred examples of affusion, 
our version in eighteen passages contains the word hathe. Suppose 
every one of these had been by immersion, as our brethren claim. 
Judging from all these divers baptisms, the probability of Christian 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 69. 

baptism by aiiiision would have been as more than ten to one. We 
lind the word bathe in the following passages: Lev., xv., 5, 6, 7, 8, 
10, 11, 13, 18, 21, 22, 27, and xvi., 26, 28, and xvii, 15, 16; Num., 
xix., 7, 8, 19. So far from these few being by immejsion in water, 
it appears to us a moral certainty that not one person among them 
was so directed. We assign the following decisive reasons for this 
(ilaim : 

1. In every one of these examples the Hebrew word rendered 
bathe is rauhats. This word is fifty times rendered wash. It not 
once expresses or implies immersing any person. It is used for 
washing the face or hands and washing the feet. I^or washing 
clothes a different Hebrew word {Jcauhas) is used. Wlien the trans- 
lators understood the washing as more extensive than the face and 
hands or feet, they inserted batlie. Even now, very nearly thirty- 
five centuries after Israel were at Mount Sinai, a small portion of 
all the civilized persons in the world do more in the way of bath- 
ing than to wash their fiesh Writers on health feel the necessity 
of urging even this. Many consider this as bathing and so call it. 
Various writers have recommended bathing with two or four quarts 
of water. The best writers constantly now use the word bathe for 
general washing. The American Family Physician, by Dr. John 
King, M. D., contains these sentences: 

Part First, page 179 and 180. ''The whole surface of the body 
and limbs is to be bathed in this weak ley, which may be done by 
raising the bed clothes and washing one side of the patient's sur- 
face from the neck to the feet with a sponge or flannel moistened 
with the fluid; then after drying, the patient must be turned and 
the bathing repeated on the opposite side. This bathing should 
never be omitted in febrile diseases." In page 17 of his House- 
hold Department, we thus read, "Almost every body, I believe, 
makes a practice of bathing the face and hands at least once a day." 
^ * * "And from such a pleasing and salutary conse- 
quence arising from the bathing of, say one fifteenth part of the ex- 
ternal surface, a person can readily form an idea of the still greater 
beneficial results that must accrue from a general bathing of the 
whole surface." No person washes or bathes his face by immers- 



70. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

iiig the face in water. Dr. King frequently uses the word bathe, 
precisely as our translators used it, in the sense of wash. 

We need look no farther than the last number of Harper's 
Magazine, for November, 1877, for similar examples of bathing by 
mereJy washing. This number contains an article entitled, "The 
Miners of Scranton." On pages 920 and 921 we thus read, "Mrs. 

says that she sets a tub of warm water for her son when he 

comes home from picking slate at the mine, and gives him soap and 
a woollen cloth, that he may 'wash all over.' " The writer adds, 
"To bathe in this manner is almost a universal rule with the men on 
leaving the mine, and a physician says that he considers this daily 
bath beneficial to their health." Both this writer and the physician 
mentioned used the words bath and bathe loosely as wasliing the 
flesh without any immersion in the water. Innumerable similar 
quotations might be made. A little water does not furnish the best 
bath. Neither is the pen the best article for marking the letters in 
books. But neither Moses nor Solomon nor Paul used the printing 
press. Chairs are very good. But no person w^ill claim that Moses 
ever saw one. Even now, after thirty-five centuries, a few quarts 
of water furnish the practical bathing of a large majority of the 
civilized world. Few families have a bath tub. Those who have 
one rarely, if ever, immerse the head. Our Baptist brethren and 
sisters are no exception. The head is, perhaps invariably, laid above 
the water. In these divers baptisms we can see no human proba- 
bility that one person was ever immersed in water. The translators 
knew that rauJiats signified wash. They so translated it fifty times. 
They knew that the same Hebrew word was used wdiere they insert- 
ed bathe. Where the evident intention w^as to w^asli the flesh gen- 
erally, they inserted bathe as the most suitable word which our lan- 
guage afforded, precisely as the best writers do now. Probably not 
one of them ever suspected the claim that the Israelites in the 
wilderness used bath tubs. 

2. The name of bathing by immersion was then unknown to 
the Hebrew language. Every language contains names for articles 
and customs known and in common use. It does not contain names 
for articles and customs totally unknowm or not yet invented. No 
ancient language contains a name for Indian corn, potatoes, or to- 



M O D E O F B A P T I SM. Jl. 

bacco. These were first discovered in America. These ancient 
languages have no names for rum, gin, whisky, and brandy, for 
these articles were not invented. They had wines, with a list of 
names for difierent sorts. The Greek language contained names for 
bathing. Balaneion was bath. Balaneus was a man who waited 
upon a bath. Balanissa, or halaneutria^ was a lady who waited upon 
ladies at the bath. Balaneuo was the verb, to keep or wait upon the 
bath. Louo in G-reek properly expresses washing the body, or wash- 
ing the dead. Nipto signifies washing the face and hands, standi pluno 
washing clothes. Louo is some times read as bathe, but only when 
the meaning is self evident. This is neither the proper word ^nor 
the usual word for bathe. Many persons now would say wash 
meaning bathe. Many others would say bathe, meaning, wash the 
whole surface. Loutris was a woman employed to wash Minerva's 
temple. The New Testament usage practically decides the question 
for our inquiry. Louo is used six times, John, xiii., 10, Acts, ix., 
37, and xvi., 33, Heb., x., 22, (in Greek 23) 2 Pet, ii., 22, Eev., i., 
5. Loutron (the noun) is used twice, Eph., v., 26, Tit., iii., 5. These 
express wash and not once bathe as immerse. Among the Romans, 
halineum or balneum was bath. In French haigner^ is to bathe. 
Wherever bathing by immersion, in distinction from merely wash- 
ing the flesh with a little water, is common, there a distinctive 
name for it is known. Doubtless every modern language of a civil- 
ized nation has a set of words for bathing. 

But the date of Israel at Mount Sinai was very nearly five- 
sixths of the way back from us to the flood. It was nearly a thou- 
sand years before Homer or any known writer mentions bathing by 
immersing in water. Either Moses knew no Hebrew words for such 
bathing as immersion in water, because the Israelites knew no such 
custom, or he carefully and invariably avoided their use because he 
did not intend to express such meaning. 

3. The circumstances of Israel in the wilderness indicate to 
our view the absolute impossibility of so many prescribed bathings 
by immersion. Water could not be obtained. Inspiration mentions 
(Deut., i., 19) that great and terrible wilderness. It was terrible, 
chiefly for want of water. This produced a want of vegetation. 
Little grass was found for their cattle. Manna must be miraculously 



72. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

furnished for tlie persons or the)^ would starve. We remember 
how many murmurings arose for want of w^ater to drink. After 
crossing the Red Sea they went three days' journey and found no 
water even to drink, (Ex., xy., 22.) Their second encampment was 
at Elim. This was perhaps their most favored place in forty years. 
They found twelve wells (probably springs) of water, (Ex., xv., 27.) 
To this day the Arabs from all the adjacent region go to Elim to 
water their flocks. Twelve springs furnished one for each tribe, 
averaging forty thousand families of five persons each. See Num., 
i., 17-47. Suppose a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants 
must obtain all their water from one spring. We will allow one 
minute in twenty-four hours to each family to obtain their water for 
the day for drinking, cooking, and washing. Some person from 
each of twenty-seven families must obtain their water from this 
one spring during each minute of the day and night. Neither clock 
nor watch was invented. Probably neither sun dial nor even the 
division of time into minutes was suspected. One small creek flows 
from these springs. We will assign this creek to their flocks and 
herds and very many cattle, (Ex., xii., 38.) The stronger cattle 
w^ould stand in the creek, drink what they wished, and foul the resi- 
due with their feet. Within the first hour the springs would be 
nearly exhausted and the creek would be dry. Both man and beast 
must live with a small quantity of water. On two different oc- 
casions Israel abode in Kadesh for some length of time. This was 
in the wilderness of Paran. Compare Gen., xxi., 21, and Num., 
xiii., 26. Here Ishmael, at the age of seventeen, with his mother 
Hagar, was ready to perish with thirst. An angel came from heaven 
to show them where to find a little water for two persons to drink. 
Here Moses brought water out of the rock for Israel and their cat- 
tle, (Num., XX., 1-11.) In such scarcity of water occasions con- 
stantly arose when the law strictly required that they should wash. 
Our version reads bathe eighteen times. It is safe to estimate these 
occasions as at least once or twice every week for some persons in 
each family. See Lev., chap. xv. Is it credible that, in these cir- 
cumstances, the Lord intended they should bathe by immersing the 
body in water? In some cases they wxre directed to bathe (rather 
wash) in running water. Unless just after some violent rain, which 
rarelv or never occurred there, no such running water sufficient for 



MODEOFBAPTISM. 73. 

immersion existed within fifty or a hundred miles. Many travel- 
ers have, in modern times, passed through this region. We are not 
aware that one of them ever gave a different opinion respecting this 
scarcity of water. Even after sixteen centuries in Canaan our 
brethren tell us that John was baptizing in JEnon, because there 
was much water there. In other words, because, in other towns, he 
could not find sufficient water to immerse a person. Either this is 
true or we are correct in thinking that John selected JEnon for 
water to drink and common uses. Along the Jordan for a hundred 
and fifty miles was no such extensive or dry desert. 

4. Our brethren quote the authority of Home's Critical Study 
of the Scriptures for the claim that Aaron and the priests were im- 
mersed at their consecration. We frankly make one admission. 
The sincere, and earnest, and all pervading claims of our brethren 
have misled many whom we should not expect. Several Lexicons 
explain classic baptizo as bathe, but, so far as we can learn, not a 
single classic example is known in which baptizo expresses or inti- 
mates bathing, or washing, or cleansing. It expresses drowning, 
killing, or destroying about fifty times. As we understand the 
Bible, it furnishes no more intimation that Aaron and other priests 
were immersed, than that they used the magnetic telegraph. Our 
translators did not once introduce the word bathe in describing their 
consecration. See Ex., xxix., 4, and xl., 12, 30, 31, 32, Lev., viii., 
6. He set the laver between the tent of the congregation and the 
altar, and put water therein to wash withal. And Moses and Aaron 
and his sons washed their hands and their /egf thereat. 

How large was this laver? Its dimensions are not given. 

Among scholars the authority of Gesenius is far better than 
that of Home, unless we include some very recent revision. Such 
recent revision will probably omit the idea of immersing the priests. 
Gesenius says of the laver, "A small basin, a wash basin. Probably 
round." Webster's Unabridged Dictionary gives its picture. This 
is doubtless correct. We recollect this charge to Moses, And look 
that thou make all things after the pattern shewed thee in the mount. 
The tabernacle and all its articles were by necessity movable. The 
temple and its articles were stationery and larger, but of the same 



74- ^^KW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

pattern. 2 Chron., iv., 1. The laver for tlie tabernacle was made 
of the looking glasses (brass mirrors) of the women who assembled 
at the door of the tabernacle, Ex., xxxviii., 8. The laver and its 
foot, or base, are usually mentioned separately. They were separately 
anointed. Ex., xl., 11, and 1 Kings, vii., 27-40. We may fairly 
infer that they were separately cast, both for the tabernacle and the 
temple. For the temple the base had a round compass on the top 
of half a cubit high. Upon this comj^ass the laver was set. A 
wash basin could stand upon it. A baptistery of sufficient size for 
immersing a person could not. It would be easily overturned. 
When we see our brethren construct a baptistery and merely set it 
upon so small a base as the top of this compass, we may be con- 
vinced that some of them deem such a construction possible. We 
do not. Such a laver, if thin and light, would be very easily over- 
turned. If used in the church for immersion we would advise the 
ladies to keep at a respectful distance. If such laver be so thick 
and heavy as to be safe in use it would be difficult for the priests to 
carry it on foot a thousand miles. This claim of immersing the 
priests in water at their consecration is not only incredible but also 
un scriptural. The laver stood outside the door of the tabernacle in 
a very public place. Ex., xl., 7. If they could stand in the laver 
they could not wash any farther than they removed their clothing. 
Did they wash their faces through vails, their hands through gloves, 
and their feet through stockings? Such removal is indeed incredi- 
ble. Compare the prohibition to go up by steps to the altar, Ex., 
XX., 26. 

But our brethren may refer to Lev., xvi., 4, Therefore shall he 
wash his flesh in water. If these words had no parallel explanation 
we might perhaps conjecture that the priests washed all, or a con- 
siderable part, ot their flesh in this laver, however small. But this 
word (rauhats) is not only so often used for washing the hands and 
feet. It is so many times used for precisely this purpose; for the 
priests washing their 7ia^6?s and /(^e^ at their consecration, as their 
only washing. When a passage in Matthew is obscure we look for 
the parallel passage in Mark, or Luke, or John for a different phrase 
giving explanation. Kead Ex., xxx., 19, 20, 21. For Aaron and 
his sons shall wash their hands and theii' feet thereat (in the laver). 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. 75. 

When thej go into the tabernacle of the congregation thej siiall 
wash with water that thej die not. * '^ * So they 
shall wash their hands and their feet that they die not. Surely the 
nineteenth and twenty-first verses explain the verse between them. 
It is indisputably mentioned so many times that the priests washed 
their hands and feet at their consecration. In reading these pas- 
sages lor more than halt a century, we had no more suspicion of thus 
immersing the high priest than we had of closing the world in 1843, 
before Miller so predicted. If this implied our negligence we had 
the best company. Probably few ever would have suspected such 
immersion if the necessity of proving immersion for baptism had 
not required it. The earnest inculcation of such immersion has 
misled many. This practical question arises, Is it so? It is very 
convenient for the claim of baptism by immersion. It is equally 
convenient for the Catholics to read thus, Except ye do penance ye 
shall all likewise perish. Manj' of them sincerely believe this. But 
their convenience is no good reason for so reading this verse. Is it 
so? It is very convenient for the Mormons, each of whom has sev- 
eral wives, to claim the examples of ' Abraham and Jacob. Still 
their convenience is not reasonable evidence. If any claim Jewish 
tradition in time of our Saviour for immersion of the high priest, 
we reply in few words. Thus have ye made the commandment of 
God ot none effect by your tradition. 

5. Our brethren quote the history of Naaman, 2 Kings, v., 14, 
Then he went down and dipped (Septuagint version baptized) him- 
self seven times in Jordan, We reply: 

A. This appears to us not one of the divers baptisms men- 
tioned in the laws of Moses. If Namaan did immerse himself, or 
if Pharaoh classically baptized or drowned himself in the Red Sea, 
neither is one of the divers baptisms. The case of Naaman appears 
to us special. 

B. Here, as in other cases, our brethren assume the precise point 
in dispute. They assume that in scripture usage baptizo signifies 
only immerse. Naaman did not drown himself seven times. 

We are just here shewing that in New Testament usage baptizo 
signifies sprinkle. 



76. NEW ANT) DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

G. The Hebrew word (tauhat) lie dipped himself seven times, 
furnishes no probability that Namaan immersed himself in Jordan. 
It is thus used : 

Gen., xxxvii., 31, They killed a kid and dipped the coat in the 
blood. Did they immerse the whole coat in the blood of one kidJ 
Such was not their design. They -would put a little blood upon the 
coat to exhibit the appearance of Joseph's blood spilled uj)on it when 
torn by some wild beast. If they had even soaked the whole coat 
in blood Jacob would have understood the deception. 

Ex., xii., 22, Ye shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip (in Sep- 
tuagint bapto) it (the top ends of it) in the blood of the lamb. We 
learn from John, xix., 29, that their hj^ssop w^as a large plant. It 
was several feet long. They used a stick of hyssop to reach a 
sponge dipped in vinegar up to the mouth of our Saviour as he w^as 
elevated upon the cross. 

Lev., xiv., 4, 5, 6, 51, As for the living bird he shall take it, 
and the cedar wood (the branches) and the scarlet (wool) and the 
hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the 
bird which was killed. Does one bird furnish sufficient blood to 
immerse all these? 

Num., xix., 18, And a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it 
(the top ends of it) in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent and 
upon all the vessels. 

This sentence is a favorite among our brethren, "Baptizing is 
dipping and dipping is baptizing." They are more nearly correct 
than some have appreciated. Dip is constantly used for putting a 
small part* of some article in a fluid or within a certain space. 

Matt., xxvi., 23, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish_ 
This is not the Hebrew tauhat for dip, but it shews the usage of 
dip. Did Judas immerse his whole hand in the gravy? Or only 
the tips of his fingers? In a very small lunar eclipse we say the 
moon barely dips (a small part of it) within the earth's shadow. 
No possible washing or immersion could, by itself, without especial 
Divine power, cleanse Naaman's leprosy. He must simply obey the 
Divine command. Elisha might have directed him to sprinkle him- 



M O D E O F B A P T I S M. J J. 

self once with milk or to look upon the brazen serpent. Obedience 
was required of him, and Divine power cleansed him. We think no 
competent scholar, who is disinterested in the result, w^ould ever 
claim that Naaman immersed himself in Jordan. 

D. Yet, as w^e understand that our brethren claim this as one 
of these divers baptisms, we will add this inquir}^: Does the law, as 
given by Moses, prescribe to any leper that he shall bathe or wash 
seven times and thus be cured? If so, please give us the quotation. 
We can furnish diiierent quotations. Lev., xiv., 7, 16, 27, 51, And 
he shall sprinlcle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy 
seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. And the priest shall 
dip his right linger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall 
sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. If 
reference be made to one of the divers baptisms it is made to one of 
these. 

The general facts respecting these divers baptisms or ritual 
purifications are these. We find them mentioned indisputably by 
afi[usion more than two hundred times. In eighteen examples our 
version reads bathe. In a few others it reads wash. But the same 
Hebrew word (rauhats) is used for both bathe and wash. Excepting 
for a moment these disputed examples^ rauhats is used more than 
lorty times, and not one of them expresses immersing any person. 
So many express washing the face, or hands, or feet. Usually, lor 
the first forty years in the wilderness, an immersion in water was 
strictly impossible. In some cases it may express washing the whole 
surface of the flesh with a little water. In all human probability 
only w^ashing their clothes was by immersion. For this a difierent 
word (kaubas) was used forty-three times. Washing their clothes 
w^as usually not merely a ritual purification. It was an absolute 
necessity for life and health. Yet at that early day such necessity 
for health was not appreciated. A wise physician would now give 
the same directions to persons who need them. More than two 
thirds of these divers baptisms, including washing clothes, were by 
afifusion with a very small quantity of water, or blood, or oil, or 
incense. About half the remaining third were not by immersion. 
The other half were not ritual, but by imperative necessity. The 
name for bathing by immersion was unknown. 



^S. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDP:NCE OF THE 

We now proceed to shew that in New Testament usage baptize 
and rantizo (sprinkle) are used as essentially synonymous, as inter- 
changeable. It is generally admitted that the words bishop, minister, 
elder (teaching elder), and pastor, are, in the New Testament, used 
for the same office. Conversion, the new birth, a new creature, refer 
to the same great change of heart. At that early day scientific 
precision in words was impossible. Variety of words expressing 
the same general fact or idea would aid in avoiding misapprehension. 

In IJeb., ix , 10, we thus read: Which stood only in meats and 
drinks and divers (various) baptisms. Here Paul refers to these 
ritual purifications, and calls them baptisms. Only three verses 
after, he refers to some of these same baptisms, and calls them 
sprinkling^ as we know they were. For if the blood of bulls and of 
goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling (rantizo) the unclean, 
santifieth to the purifying of the flesh. In verse 19 he again refers 
to another list of these same baptisms and calls them sprinkling. 
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people accord- 
ing to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water 
and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all 
the people. In verse 21 he once more mentions these same purifi- 
i^ations or baptisms as sprinkling. Moreover he sprinkled likewise 
with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 
Within twelve verses Paul calls these purifications baptisms, and 
then he calls these same purifications sprinkling (rantizo) three 
times. Two thirds of them were strictly by sprinkling or its 
equivalent. Many others were merely washing the face, hands, or 
feet. We ask you brethren, kindly and respectfully, can you deny 
that these divers baptisms and sprinkling (rantizo) are here used as 
synonymous and interchangeable like Simon and Peter? 

If Paul had known that Christian baptism was by immersion, 
can we believe he would have used such words? It does not appear 
as once occurring to him that any of these merely ritual baptisms 
were by immersion. In fact, not one such baptism of a person was 
by immersion. Can any such words and phrases be quoted from a 
single Baptist writer mentioning baptism within a thousand years? 

Also, in Mark, vii., 3, 4, does not baptizo ex]3ress sprinkling? 
Except they baptize themselves they eat not. And he mentions the 



MODE (^ F IJ A P T I S :M. /Q. 



baptism of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and covcJies around 
the table. In these words, baptize and baptism, was not the mean- 
ing precisely sprinkle (rantizo) with a very little water? In 1 Cor.^ 
X., 2, might not Fanl have ecaially well said they were all rantized 
(sprinkled) in the clond and in the sea? Our brethren claim the 
spray of water like an evening dew. Was this any more than a 
very slight sprinkling or affusion? 

F. 1 Pet., iii., 21, The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us. Reference is made to Noah and his family 
as saved in the ark. They were saved, not Jy immersion, but from 
it. In their circumstances immersion would have been a figure of 
drowning in the flood. 

G. When any New Testament writer did mean immersion in 
water he invariably used a difi:erent word. 

Matt., xiv., 30, And beginning to sink, (KATAj)ontizo) he cried, 
saying. Lord save me. 

Matt., xviii., 6, Better for him that he were drowned (kata- 
pontizo) in the depth of the sea. The classic Greeks might have 
said. Better for him that he were baptized in the depth of the sea. 
But the New Testament avoids every such usage ot baptizo. 

1 Tim., vi., 9, Many foolish and hurtful lusts which drowm 
(huthizo) men in destruction and perdition. Here also the classic 
Greeks might have said hcqotize men in destruction and perdition. 
But so did not Paul, nor Peter, nor any writer in the N ew Testament. 

Acts, xxvii., 43, And commanded that they who could swim 
should cast themselves first into the sea. It Luke had known that 
baptizo signified to plunge into the water and come quickly and 
safely out of it, he might have said they should baptize themselves. 
Not one writer in the New Testament appears to have suspected 
that baptizo signified immerse. 

1 Cor., X., 2, com^pare Heb,, xi., 29. The classic Greeks might 
have said this, Which the Egyptians assaying to do were baptized. 
Paul said Israel were baptized in passing through the Ped Sea as by 
dry land. 



8o. NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE OF THE 

JS'iNTH Summary— EVIDENCE FOK AFFUSION. 
We have seen that classic baptize furnislies very little real 
evidence respecting the mode of Christian baptism. Its immersion 
is drowning. Several examples imply the use ot a v^ery little water 
or milk. In New Testament usage baptizo signifies sprinkle or wet 
with a little water. The hands were ritually baptized (wet) with a 
few drops of water. The couches were sprinkled with so little. It 
is easy to inquire of orthodox Jews, or of the Jewisli Messenger in 
New York. In passing the Red Sea it was little more damp than a 
summer evening, unless we suppose it rained. Two thirds of the 
divers baptisms were by sprinkling or affusion. In other words, by 
putting on a little water, or blood, or oil, or incense. Many of the 
other third were simply washing the face, or hands, or feet. In no 
reasonable probability was one of them by immersion, except wash- 
ing clothes. This was not merely ritnal. It was requisite to health, 
cleanliness, and propriety. Baptizo is even used as synoQymons 
with rantizo (sprinkle). Katac^^^o or KA.TA.d(imi is used for iininerse. 
Kolumbao expresses dive or swim. Balaneion is bath. Neither 
baptizo nor baptismos is once used as synonymons with either of 
these. 

We have shown that the immersion of large numbers by the 
same minister in the same day is incredible. Now inclosed in India 
rubber he can do it. But India rubber for baptism is a modern 
improvement. So did neither John, nor Peter, nor Faul. We there- 
fore reverse the claim of our brethren. 

If baptizo, in New Testament usage, had fairly signified im - 
merse^ this fact would have lurnished a strong presumption of 
baptism by immersion. Equally, its usage as sprinkle furnishes 
evidence of such baptism. We have also the decisive fact of this 
Greek idiom. It shews, to a moral certainty, that they neither went 
into the water nor came out of it for baptism. This confident claim 
so often repeated is not merely lost, it is reversed. Also Jesus was 
baptized, not in [eso) Jordan, but at (eis) Jordan. As in Acts, xviii.^ 
22, When they had landed at {eis) Cesarea. A ship usually lands 
at or by the side of a city or near to it. We have seen that eis is 
rarely used as in any locality. It is never so used unless where the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 8l. 

sense of the passage renders such meaning very plainly self evident. 
All these facts render it morally certain that Christian baptism was 
by sprinkling or affusion. 

We will here introduce one independent branch of evidence 
outside of the Bible. A picture of Christian baptism has recently 
been discovered in the catacombs at Rome. The evidence is con- 
sidered decisive that the date of this picture was in the second 
century. The Apostle John certainly lived till very nearly the close 
of the first century. Some writers have placed his death as late as 
the year one hundred and twenty. In all human probability, many, 
both Christians and others, who Jived in the days of John, were still 
living to see this picture. So far no possible difference of opinion 
respecting the mode of baptism could arise. No intelligent Ameri- 
can now disputes the facts of the Declaration of American Inde- 
pendence and the command of the army by Washington. The only 
evasion of the evidence from this picture must consist in fairly 
disproving its date. It represents a person standing erect, with the 
water barely covering his feet. The minister stands by the side, 
having taken up a little water in his hand, and putting this water 
upon the head of the person receiving baptism. We would ask our 
brethren this question : Suppose a similar picture, but representing 
baptism by immersion, had been found in this same place, with 
precisely similar evidences of genuineness and date ; would you not 
have sincerely considered this as very strong evidence of immersion? 
We certainly should so consider it, even on your side. Here is the 
oldest picture of Christian baptism known. 

As we understand it is the only such picture known of a date 
so early that it furnishes reliable evidence of the mode of baptism. 



82. INFANT BAPTISM. 



Tenth Summary -INFANT BAPTISM. 
Some persons may inquire if our reasoning does not exclude 
infant baptism. We think not. We present a brief explanation. 
We remarked that the phrases mentioning household baptism would 
prove infant baptism, as the phrases, — they went into the water; 
Jesus and the multitudes were baptized in Jordan, — if correct^ would 
prove immersion. We do not think the Holy Spirit would inspire 
either phrase, unless its probable implication were true. Take, for 
example, the case of Lydia, Acts, xvi., 15: And when she was bap- 
tized, and her household. The great essential fact of her conversion 
was carefully mentioned. The words, her household, certainly 
imply, in the plain, common-sense manner of the Bible, that Lydia 
had a family with her. Our brethren have told the world, in print, 
that it must first be proved that Lydia had a family. A law^^er, if 
more than usually technical, might talk in this way, especially if he 
were aware of being on the wrong side of the case. With much 
greater plausibility, he might deny the evidence of immersion, from 
the phrases in our translation. Instead of mentioning the baptism 
of her household, it was easy to mention their conversion. We doubt 
not Luke would have so mentioned it, if true. 

Our brethren claim that going to the water furnishes probable 
evidence of immersion. If by aitusion, they would bring a little 
water to the place, as those who practise afiusion now do. With 
modern customs this might be true. Even our brethren are con- 
structing baptisteries in their churches. Witli increasing conven- 
iences and refinement we presume that, with either mode, they 
would soon baptize in the churches. But in primitive days and 
oriental customs the case difiered. The daughters of Victoria do 
not go to the river to wash, as the daughter of Pharaoh did. 

But we raise this inquiry, On the one hand we have the 
probability of immersion arising from the fact that in some cases 
they went to the water for baptism. On the other hand we have 



INFANT BAFHSM. 83. 



the probability of infant baptism arising from tlie mention, that 
Lydia was baptized and her Jwusehold, with no intimation of the 
conversion of even one of her family. In the next chapter bnt one, 
verse 8, we read that Crispns, the chief rnler of the synagogue, 
believed on the Lord tvitJi all Ms house. Here Lnke is careful to 
mention the conversion of the family of Crispus, but not their 
baptism. He mentions their conversion in unequivocal words. 
We now inquire which probalulity is the greatest? Is it that of 
immersion from going to the water, or that of infant baptism from 
the fact that the baptism of the family of Lydia is so carefully 
mentioned, without intimation of their conversion? We hope to 
present far more decisive evidence of infant baptism than this We 
now merely compare this with the probability ot immersion from 
o-oins" to the water. We deem this as fairly the p-reater of the two. 
Instead of mentioning the baptism of these households, it was 
equally eas}^ to mention their conversion. This was far more im- 
poj'tant. We doubt not Luke would have so mentioned this, if true. 
He did so mention it where it was true. 

As usually read, four difierences appear. 

1. The passages which mention household baptism are indis- 
putably correct in translation. The phrases which mention going 
into the water are plainly erroneous. 

2. Another difference is the following: Baptism takes the 
place of circumcision. Male children were certainly circumcised. 
This removes all the intrinsic objections, if any be supposed. Our 
brethren have, so many times, told us, it is so unreasonable to 
baptize an unconscious child. He can understand nothing of the 
design of his baptism. Was it any less unreasonable to circumcise 
an unconscious child only eight days old? This was painful. It 
was dangerous without skill. Infant baptism is neither. Our 
brethren have too sacred reverence for the Bible to pronounce infant 
circumcision unreasonable. We trust that not one of them ever 
uttered such a word. We fail to appreciate any force in this 
objection. One of the most sacred obligations resting upon every 
Christian parent is to train up his children for the service of his 
Lord and Saviour. The baptism of his infant child is like circum- 



84. INFANT BAI^TISM. 



cision under the law, and like his own profession under the gospel. 
It is a sacred public promise to train up this child for his God and 
Saviour, for Christian usefulness, and for heaven. 

To us it appears eminently reasonable that this responsible 
parental relation and Christian duty should De thus marked by a 
religious rite. It would appear mysterious to us if Divine wisdom 
had omitted such a rite. Dr. Dwight once made this remark, I 
would rather be President of Yale College than of the United 
States. In this he was doubtless correct. But he added, I would 
rather be President of my own family than of Yale College. Every 
parent has a responsibility which eternity only can measure. Now, 
Christian brethren, you have ten thousand times claimed the supreme 
authority of the Bible respecting baptism. In this you are right. 
We therefore kindly ask you to lay aside every intimation that 
infant baptism is in itself unreasonable. Every such intimation 
lies with much greater force against infant circumcision. But God 
certainly appointed this. It has ever appeared mysterious that our 
brethren, who sincerely endeavor to follow the Bible in the mode of 
baptism, should venture to object against infant baptism as unreason- 
able. All such objections appear to us irreverent. We ask you 
brethren is not this true? An infidel might with some plausibility 
thus object to infant circumcision. The question whether infant 
baptism is scriptural remains open to inquiry. But the baseless 
objection to it as unreasonable appears ominous to all that side. 
With reverence we should not dare to say it. 

3. While we do not claim infant circumcision as proving 
infant baptism the analogy does render it probable. Similar 
probability appears in the history of our Saviour when He took 
little children in his arms and blessed them. Those unconscious 
babes did not understand His gracious design. This was not infant 
baptism, but it repels every objection as unreasonable. It renders 
infant baptism probable. 

4. Also immersion, it true, was a new rite, previously un- 
known to the Bible. We are told of Jewish proselyte baptism. 
This, if true, was mere human wisdom. The Bible no where directs 
it even by implication. Our brethren object very strongly, and 



INFANT BAPTISM. 8;. 



very properly, to all such human rites. Immersion, if true, was 

new and required a more specific mention. We find various 

examples of thus carefully mentioning a new rite or usage, i^'emales 

were not circumcised. For them baptism was a new rite. Hence 

we find a specific mention of their baptism. Acts, viii., 12, They 

were baptized both men and women. Women did partake of the 

passover. It was not requisite to mention their joining in the 

communion service. This is not mentioned. It is imT)lied in 

various principles. No person doubts it. In this one respect it 

has been claimed that the evidence for infant fcaptism resembles 

that of women at communion. Both are so plainly implied that 

specific mention was not needful. 

\ ■ ■ \ ,■" . . 

The strictness of the Sabbath, and even its continued Divine 

authority, are so fully mentioned in the Old Testament, that only 

slight allusions to them appear in the New Testament. 

Various evidences of infant baptism have been presented. The 
Jews were extremely tenacious of including their son§ in the 
covenant by their circumcision in infancy. If their children had 
not thus been included in baptism (in place of circumsion) much 
complaint would have arisen. But not one such word is known. 
Also if infant baptism had been unknown till after the Apostles 
left the world, and if it had then been soon introduced, much con- 
troversy would have been recorded. Nearly all the older members 
would have personally known it as a mere human invention, a gross 
innovation. Not one such word is known. But a very insignificant 
controversy on this precise question was just then recorded. This 
question was debated. May infants receive baptism before they are 
eight days old? This fully implies the well known fact of infant 
baptism. But the Jewish ritual tenacity respecting circumcision 
was thus exhibited. 

The covenant made with Abraham was long before the law at 
Mount Sinai. Circumcision, the same seal of this covenant, was 
included in the law at Mount Sinai. Paul says (Gal., iii., 17,) The 
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can not disannul 
this covenant. But this covenant appears fairly to include infant 
baptism. 



S6. INFANT BAl^ISM. 



This passage also fairly includes it, (1 Cor., vii., 14) Else were 
yonr cliildren unclean but now are they holy. These cases would 
then frequently arise. A husband become a Christian while the 
wife remained an opposer. Or, more frequently, the wife became 
a Christian, while the husband continued a cruel persecuting 
heathen. Among heathen, women are little better than slaves. In 
this inferior, dependent position, the Christian wife of a stern 
heathen had a sorrowful lot. His cruelties might tempt her to 
leave him. As a general rule Paul said ^N'o. The word holy, like 
all others, is first literal. A person may be holy, he may do right 
towards God and man, as every person ought to do. Secondly, or 
figuratively, in outward appearance, a person may be ritually holy. 
He may be set apart, by a religious rite, for a special holy service. 
A minister of the gospel is, in this sense, holy, though in heart and 
in practice he may possibly be a bad man. A person may receive 
baptism and connect himself with a Christian church. He is 
ritually holy. But he may possibly be a hypocrite. A church 
building may be ritually holy. It is sacredly dedicated to the ser- 
vice of God. Where one, or even both, parents are members of the 
church it does not follow that all their children are literally holy, or 
converted to God. But in the view of infant baptism they are 
ritually holy. They are consecrated to God by a religious rite. 
The unbelieving husband is not, literally, so sanctified by his 
Christian wife, that he is a good Christian man and on the way to 
heaven. But he is, ritually, so lar sanctified by his Christian w4fe, 
that their children may receive baptism, and thus they may become 
ritually holy. 

The only other interpretation which we can appreciate is this, 
Else were your children nnclean (illegitimate). The absurdity of 
this view is admitted by our brethren. They endeavor to avoid it. 
We have repeatedly read their explanation. But we utterly fail to 
comprehend it. It appears a distinction without a difference. Its 
phrase has ever reminded us of the advice given by the venerable 
Dr. Wayland respecting such obscure phrases, "Inquire whether the 
writer had any meaning." In the frailty of humanity any of us 
may be insensibly on the wrong side. When we are so we are all 
very prone to use words or phrases which, in their present con- 
struction, have no practical meaning 



INFANT BAPTISM. 87. 



A list of these evidences of infant baptism appear to us very 
strong. But tliey have been presented by others. 

We will present chiefly one philological evidence which has 
usually been overlooked. To avoid misapprehension we premise 
these explanations. 

A. We fail to see that baptized children are in any proper 
sense members of the church. Their baptism was the act of their 
parents. It was not their own act. When such a child reaches a 
responsible age he chooses for himself. He may make a profession 
in the church of his parents. If so he makes his own personal 
profession, precisely as any other person does. He has indeed 
already received baptism. He now publicly assents to this baptism. 
Until he does personally make such profession he is never consid- 
ered a member of the church. Previously he may travel or remove 
He neither asks a certificate of his membership in the church, nor 
a letter of dismission and recommendation to some other church. 
No church could, or ought to, or would give him such a letter of 
dismission. No church would receive a person to membership 
solely upon a certificate of his membership in the church by virtue 
of his baptism in his infancy. He may steal horses, but the church 
can not subject him to discipline. With persuasion and Christian 
sympathy members of the church may watch over him, but they 
can only persuade. If at mature age he prefers a church of some 
different denomination, or no church at all, this is his privilege. 
He is responsible to his God and Saviour, but not to any church, 
until he personally assumes such obligation. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church receives persons to a partial 
or quasi membership on probation. During this probation the 
person may remove. If so he may ask and receive a letter of dis- 
mission. He is, so far, recommended to the reception of some 
sister church. Baptism in infancy gives no such membership. 

B. The tendency appears in sinful human nature to magnify 
religious forms and rites, and to rest satisfied with these, forgetting 
the reality signified. Too many are ritually satisfied with infant 
baptism. As many are ritually satisfied with adult baptism and a 
profession. They exhibit little more than the form. Biety in heart 



88. INFANT BAPTISM. 



is one thing. The kingdom of God is within you. The external 
profession of that piety is a separate action. A person claims to 
be a Christian before his profession. If he is not, no profession 
can make him such. This idea is expressed, No person can be a 
Christian until he becomes a member of some church. Essentially 
the same idea is thus expressed. After a person's conversion, his 
standing in the book of God's remembrance is not changed till he 
receives baptism. In a milder form, a particular mode of baptism 
is made indispensable, not only to church membership, but even to 
fraternal communion between diiferent churches. Let us make 
every reasonable effort to ascertain what is the scriptural mode of 
baptism. Let us practice this scriptural mode whatever it may be. 
But while the most intelligent Christians honestly differ respecting 
the scriptural mode, this mode appears to us one of the minor 
matters. It is indefinitely smaller than those moral obliquities and 
Christian blemishes which are tolerated by all the churches in 
Christendom. In general terms, it is the duty of a Christian to 
make a visible profession How far his doubts respecting his own 
piety, or his objections to the neighboring churches may, in special 
cases, excuse the omission, we do not here inquire. 

C. Baptism is claimed as the door of the church. We believe 
it. Christ is the door to heaven. But in a very different sense He 
is the door to the church. Baptism appears to us as decisively in- 
tended by our Saviour as a rite to be received by a person before his 
admission to the visible church. We can appreciate no scriptural 
authority, and no Christian propriety, in the liberal usage of invit- 
ing to communion other than members of Evangelical churches in 
full and regular standing. We claim affusion as the sci"iptural 
mode of baptism. We firmly believe it to be the only scriptural 
mode. Yet we appreciate a broad distinction between the two fol- 
lowing cases. One person has received baptism in the mode which 
he firmly and sincerely believes to be scriptural. He is an exem- 
plary member of an evangelical church. But his mode of baptism 
difiers from mine. Another has neglected all baptism and all 
profession. I would invite the former but not the latter. 

We now proceed to confirm these probable evidences of infant 
baptism by one decisive fact. 



INFANT BAPTISM. 



Acts, xvi., 30-^4: Our brethren will admit the following view. 
The jailer was probably a Gentile. Paul and Silas "spake unto him 
the word of the Lord, and to all (the persons) ^A«^ were m his housed 
The y^zYer A2?7?seZf was apparently converted. He was baptized, he 
and all his. In Greek, the word all is plural. Of course the jailer 
had a family with him. Now, these two questions arise: — 

1. Were the persons designated as all his, doubtless his 
children, considered as converted? 

2. Have we decisive evidence that these children were not 
considered and treated as converted? We claim that they received 
baptism, not by their own profession, but soleli/ on account of their 
father's profession. If we decisively prove this claim, the question 
respecting the Scripture authority of infant baptism may receive a 
joyful end of all strife. As evidence, we mention: — 

1. The conversion of the jailer himself is plainly mentioned; 
but the supposed intimation that all his were converted, is erroneous. 
In about forty other passages we find, the word house, or household, 
used to designate the persons composing the family. In these other 
passages our version is correct. Without exception, the word for 
house, or household, is a noun; this noun may be plural, or a col- 
lective noun singular, as the family, the company, the assembly. 

Matt., X., 6, and xv., 24: To the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 

Luke, i., 27: Joseph of the house of David. 

Yerse 33 : And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever. 

Luke, ii., 4: The house and lineage of David. 

Luke, X., 5: Peace be to this house (or family). 

Luke, xi., 17: A house divided against a house falleth. 

Acts, ii., 36: Let the house of Israel know. 

Acts, X., 2: One that feared God with all his house. 

Acts, xi., 14: Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all 
thy house shall be saved. 

Acts, xvi., 15: And when she was baptized and her household. 



90. INFANT BAPTISM. 



Acts, xvi., 31, 32, 33: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
thou shalt be saved and thy house. And they spake unto liim the 
word of the Lord and to all that were in his house. And was bap- 
tized he and all his. 

1 Cor., i., 16: I baptized also the household of Stephanas. 

1 Tim., iii., 4: One that ruleth well his ow^n house. 

We all agree that in these and similar passages reference is 
made to the persons or members of the family. But in the single 
case in question an adverb {panoihi) is used. As this is a special 
exception, diliering from forty, we may infer that Luke (usually 
very precise in words) had a reason for this exception. In Acts, x., 
2, above quoted, we find the words. One that feared God with all 
his house. In Acts, xviii., 8, we again find it. Crispus, the chief 
ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house. In 
both these cases a collective noun is used. In both, as we should 
naturally expect, Luke relates the conversion or the religious char- 
acter of the persons in the family. In these cases indisputably all 
the persons in the family were considered and treated as converted. 
Luke left no uncertainty. He rarely did. We read of the jailer, 
in our version he rejoiced, believing in God {panoiki) with all his 
house. An abverb like this neither admits nor implies a plural, as 
every other example does. 

We can not quote other examples of this adverb from the 
Greek Testament, for it is used in only this verse. It is rarely if 
ever used in classic Greek. Liddell and Scott omit it. They insert 
panoikia^ a noun used as an adverb. We can therefore quote only 
other adverbs similarly used. An adverb is a contracted form of 
expression. It mentions in one word an idea which would other- 
wise require several words. Here is equal to in this place. The 
whole Bible was written rather in a practical common sense manner 
than according to technical rules. It was designed for common 
people to read and understand. Many adverbs especially require a 
practical common sense interpretation. 

Mat., xxvii., 51: The vail of the temple was rent from upward 
to down, or, in our version, from top to bottom. Dilferent languages 



INFANT BAPTISM. 9I. 



have peculiar forms of expression. It is in many cases impossible 
to give a strictly literal translation. Usually our version gives the 
precise meaning. 

Mark, v., 23: My little daughter lieth (eschatos) lastly, in the 
last moments of life, or, in our version, at the point of death. 
With very difierent words the meaning is the same. 

Mark, ix., 21: How long is it since this came upon him? He 
said, childly, or from a child. 

Mark, xiv., 11: And he sought how he might (lo ell timely^ or at 
a favorable time) or conveniently betray him. Compare 2 Tim., iv., 
2: Preach the word. Be instant (well timely, not timel}^) or in 
season, out of season. 

Luke, xxiii., 10: And (well enforced, or with much force,) or 
vehemently accused him. Compare Acts, xviii., 28 : For he (with 
much force) or mightily, convinced the Jews. 

Acts, xxvi., 13: I saw in the way a light {heavenward) or from 
heaven. 

1 Cor., xiv., 40: Let all things be done (well in form, in grace- 
ful manner) decently and in order. 

Gal, ii., 14: If thou being a Jew livest (Gentilely) as do the 
Gentiles, and not (Jewishly) as do the Jews, why compellest thou 
the Gentiles to Judaize? 

Heb., i., 1: God who (much timely and much mannerly) at 
sundry times and in divers manners, spake (anciently) in time past 
to our fathers by the prophets. It is easy to extend this list of 
adverbs. All Greek scholars are familiar with them. 

Now we read that the jailer, after his conversion, rejoiced 
(panoiJci) in our version with all his house. We are fully convinced 
that the principal inaccuracies in our version refer to baptism. If 
the phrase, with all his house, be understood as implying the con- 
version of his family, we diifer in view of four reasons: 

1, The adverb (panoiJci) has probably a very diilerent mean- 
ing. Pan signifies all, and oiJci is from oiJcos^ house, or allhousely, 
or in common English, respecting all the house, or domestically. It is 



92. INFANT BAPTISM. 



impossible to give a precise literal translation in English. It is 
equally impossible to ascertain the usage of this adverb elsewhere. 
It is so rarely tound. We can judge only by theory. In such a 
case any theory is uncertain. But the evidence of the conversion 
of the famil}" is very slight. 

2. The fact that Luke and so many other New Testament 
writers invariably used the collective noun house, or household, 
implying the persons, but in this case Luke used an adverb, fairly 
implies that he had a dilterent meaning. The jailer, after his con- 
version, rejoiced respecting his house, or even with his house in a 
lower sense. This remark has been made with much reason. Genuine 
heartfelt conversion and piety make the man, or the parent, or 
neighbor. They make especially the converted heathen. They 
inspire him with new principles, new motives, new hopes. The 
heathen father was probably selfish, unfeeling, unkind. Now all 
things with him have become new. Love to God is shed abroad in 
his heart, awakening such love to man as he never previously 
knew. He looks upon his children in a new and interesting light. 
They were the gift of God and destined to an immortal existence. 
He is now in the ardor of his first love to God. He deems it a 
matter of course that he shall soon win those children to the Saviour, 
and shall dwell with them in heaven. How many children rejoice 
at the conversion of an intemperate father. How many rejoice 
when such a father even signs the temperance pledge. How many 
such lathers rejoice with their family. Their families are not 
changed. 

3. The probability of the present conversion of his children is 
still farther diminished by the fact that Luke is careful to mention 
only their baptism, while in other cases, as already noticed, he 
relates their conversion in preference to their baptism. We should 
all naturally so mention it. 

4. The decisive reason is the following: We object to the 
claim of the present conversion of the children, because this is 
directly contradictory to the participle helieving. As we explain 
this participle we expect to show, beyond all reasonable question, 



INFANT BAPTISM. 93. 



that the jailer, and himself only^ was considered and treated as con- 
verted. Luke was well educated. 

He is very careful and precise in his language. He was also 
inspired. The idea that the jailer rejoiced in his children as already 
converted, he^ and he only^ having believed in God, in the Christian 
sense of these words, is directly self contradictory. As the evidence 
depends upon this participle we, will consider it with much care. 
By Latin or Greek usage the spelling of an adjective or participle, 
when applied to a noun or pronoun, varies as singular or plural. It 
also varies as masculine, feminine, or neuter. It farther varies with 
the case. For the English reader, we will quote a few examples with 
which every Latin or Greek scholar is familiar, ^o scholar will 
dispute them. We will quote a few examples of this same partici- 
ple, as believing^ or believed, or having believed: 

A. Mat., xxi., 22: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer helieviiig 
(pisteuontes, plural, nominative, masculine,) ye shall receive. 

B. Mat., xxi v., 41 : Two women shall be grinding at the mill, 
one shall be taken and the other left. In our version the word 
women is in italics. It is not in the Greek. But the word two is 
nominative and feminine. Of course it would be absurd to say two 
men. It also reads one (feminine) shall be taken and one (feminine) 
left. In our version, very properly one (woman) shall be taken and 
the other left. 

C. Luke, i., 45: Blessed is she that believed. Literally, 
Blessed is having believed, pisteusasa, feminine, past tense. We 
can say neither he nor theg having believed. The pronoun she is 
omitted according to Greek usage, as the feminine participle admits 
no possible difference of construction. No scholar ever did dispute 
this. 

D. John, viii., 31: Jesus said to those Jews having believed on 
him. The participle is pepisteuJcotas, plural, masculine, objective. 
Here we find the same participle as the jailer having believed. In 
this passage it is plural to correspond to the word Jews. It is in 
the same (perfect) tense. An English reader may raise this ques- 
tion. Did only men among the Jews believe in Christ? We explain. 
We frequently mention an unknown person. We mention an un- 



94- INFANT BAPTISM. 



known thief, He stole nij money. Possibly this thief was a 
woman. Possibly also two persons were concerned. In mentioning 
an unhnoiun person we use the masculine form. We thus read, 
Whoso sheddeth mrni's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. This 
general term includes women as well as men. We also mention a 
company including both sexes. Zacharias and Elizabeth were both 
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordi- 
nances of the Lord blameless. The words both, righteous, walking, 
and blameless, are in masculine form. The Greek language has no 
specific form for common gender, including in such cases both sexes. 
The use the masculine form to express a mixed company. Jesus 
said to those Jews (both men and women) having believed on him. 
E. John, XX., 29: Blessed are they not seeing yet believing. 
Both participles are masculine and plural. 

F Acts, XV., 5 : Then arose certain of the sect of the Pharisees 
having helieved (plural nominative, masculine, perfect or present 
perfect tense). 

G. Acts, xviii., 27: For he helped them much, having helieved 
(plural, perfect tense). If the meaning had been that Apollos 
having himself believed, essentially helped others, the participle, 
having believed, would have been singular. If it had been singular 
such would have been the indisputable meaning. As it is the 
plural it refers, indisputably, to them having believed or the re- 
cent converts. 

H. Acts, xix., 18: Many of them having helieved came to- 
gether, confessing and shewing their deeds. All plural. 

I. Acts, xxii., 19: Lord they know that I imprisoned and beat 
in every synagogue them helieving^ (plural, present tense, objective 
case.) 

J. Titus, iii., 8: That they having helieved (plural, nominative, 
perfect tense) in God might be careful to maintain good works. 

This agreement of adjectives andparticiples in gender, number, 
and case, with their nouns or pronouns, is as carefully and strictly 
observed in Latin and Greek as the similar agreement of personal 
pronouns in English. We do not use the masculine pronoun for a 



INFANT BAPTISM. 95. 



woman (if so known) nor the feminine pronoun for a man, it 
known, nor the syignlar pronoun for two or three persons if known. 
Special exceptions are found to nearly all general rules. It is usual 
for writers and editors to say we instead of I. We quote several 
examples of other words. 

Mat., iv., 18. Literally. Walking by the Sea of Galilee saw 
two brothers. Walking is singular and masculine. Jesus walking 
saw two brothers. 

Acts, xvi., 13: We sat down and spake unto the women coming 
together^ (plural, feminine). 

We will quote a few verses in the history of the jaiJer. Yerse 
22: And the magistrates rending (plural) off their clothes com- 
manded to beat them. And laying (plural) many stripes upon them, 
they cast them into prison, charging (plural) the jailer to keep them 
safely. Who having received (singular) such a charge ^ ^ "^ 
And at midnight Paul and Silas, praying, (plural) sang praises to 
God. And the keeper awaking (singular, masculine) and seeing 
(singular, masculine) the prison doors-opened, (plural) drawing (sin- 
gular, masculine) his sword, would have killed himself, supposing 
(singular, masculine) the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried, 
saying (singular, masculine). Do thyself no harm, for we are all 
(plural) here. Then he, calling (singular, masculine) for a light, 
sprang in and came trembling (singular, masculine) * * * 
and he bringing (singular, masculine) them out, said, Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved? And he taking (singular, masculine,) them, 
washed their stripes and was baptized, he and ail (plural) his, 
straightway. And bringing (singular, masculine) them into his 
house he spread the table and rejoiced (singular) respecting his 
house, he having believed in God. 

We might quote thousands of similar passages in which the 
spelling of adjectives or participles is, without exception, varied by 
gender, number, and case, to correspond to the noun or pronoun 
with which they are connected, '^o competent scholar in Christen- 
dom will den}^ this. Except in some special case no denominational 
question is involved. The plain common sense and sober reason, 
when free from interested bias, reaches a correct interpretation. No 



96. INFANT BAPTISM. 



ditfereiice of opinion between intelligent persons ever arose. Why 
should we not here use tlie same common sense and sober reason. 
The jailer rejoiced respecting all his house, or in a lower sense with 
all his house, he having believed in God. The translators used the 
present tense, helieviiig in God, instead of the perfect tense, he having 
believed in God. The latter phrase is precise, but the former is very 
nearly so. We may call it believing in God. It is undeniably singu- 
lar and masculine. He having believed in God. If Luke had 
understood that his children were considered and treated as converted, 
he would certainly have used the participle, believing or having be- 
lieved^ in the plural, as in so many other cases. 

Luke well knew whether these children were or were not con- 
sidered and treated as converted. We claim, without fear of 
successful contradiction, that not one competent Christian scholar, 
since John was in the Isle of Patmos, ever claimed a similar 
example of a participle as plural, while written in singular form, 
unless some favorite opinion compelled him to seek a peculiar con- 
struction. We ask our brethren svho are familiar with Greek, to 
examine this phrase, to compare it with these explanations, and see 
if they can fairly deny that the jailer, and himself only^ was consid- 
ered and treated as converted. This participle appears to us decisive. 
We deem it not merely a probable confirmation of infant baptism, 
but a moral certainty. He having believed in God. In closing we 
make these sus^o-estions: 

1. We believe it to be a Christian duty to practice baptism as 
the scripture describes it. We would ask no change for convenience 
or cold weather. We would offer no strange fire before the Lord. 
We practice affusion because we are very certain this was the 
scriptural inode of baptism. But let us imagine, for one moment, 
that immersion is admitted as scriptural, and that we have changed 
to affusion from ])ure convenience. With ns this offense of the 
cross has ceased. On the other hand, it was a few years ago sus- 
pected, and so intimated, that our brethren also evaded this offense 
of the cross by using slyly a suit of india rubber. It was long 
before they would admit such use of india rubber, but the use has 
now become notorious We would respectfully make this inquiry: 



INFANT BAPTISM. Q/. 



In the case supposed, would we, by changing the mode of bap- 
tism, or our bretliren by using an indiarubber suit, most completely 
and inexcusably evade this offense of the cross? We can appreciate 
neither propriety nor scriptural authority for thus protecting the 
minister, rather than the person receiving baptism. It is easy to go 
under water and only slightly touch the water. One may go into a 
ship and sit (en) in the sea, as our Saviour did (Mark, iv., 1). An- 
other may walk over the deck of a steamboat or over a bridge. A 
third may walk under the river through the tunnel in Chicago or 
London. A fourth may walk out in a summer evening, or in a 
shower, as perhaps Israel passed the Eed Sea. Is not either of these 
as good an immersion as such a baptism in a suit of india rubber? 
As our brethren have already evaded the substance of immersion, 
we conjecture they will soon lay aside the form. 

2. We acknowledge our obligation to some Baptist brethren 
for the information to which their claims have led. One brother 
complained that we had mutilated Cruden's Concordance. We had 
published an edition omitting the word bathe. Upon inquiry, we 
have, very unexpectedly, found such an edition of Cruden. It was 
published by Gould and Lincoln, of Boston, Mass. They were 
Baptist publishers. This ommission was doubtless accidentah We 
hope at least that the omission will not be laid at our door. The 
same brother complained that we have foisted in certain words in 
the Lexicon which explain baptizo. We inquire, Who foisted in the 
word bathe to explain baptizo without a single classic example 
among one hundred and fourteen? We would inquire, Who foisted 
in immerse so constantly in explaining baptizo, but omitted to 
mention that it uniformly signified to drown, kill, or destroy? 

3. In the pages of the Christian Standard, of Cincinnati, for 
Nov. 11, 1876, we made the following request of any person who 
would deny the reality of this Greek Idiom which we have explained : 

"Please furnish the public, and especially myself, with the 
certificate of a few able Baptist ministers, who are known to the 
Christian world as good Biblical critics, in nearly the following 
form : 

" I do hereby certify that I have carefully examined the pamphlet 
published by Isaac E. Heaton, of Jb remont, Nebraska, entitled New 



98. INFANT BAl^ISM. 



and Decisive Evidence of the Mode of Baptism. I have carefully 
examined the explanation which he gives and the evidence which he 
claims for this Greek Idiom, and his statements respecting it. I do 
hereby pronounce his claim to this Greek Idiom or usage erroneous. 
It is not founded in the usage of the Greek Testament. I pronounce 
his statement respecting this Greek Idiom essentially erroneous. I 

will mention these particular statements: On page first (or 

second) edition, he presents this statement: 

" I find it erroneous in this part: 

" Also on page of the same edition, I find this erroneous 

statement: 

" Signed with his own name.'' 

"We also request from the best Baptist scholars a similar denial 
of any statements or arguments in the present edition which are 
claimed as erroneous. We respectfully ask that such denial be 
made, not in general terms, but precisely and definitely pointing 
out our errors. We have repeatedly revised these statements and 
reasonings with much care. We think we have made them chiefly 
as to the Lord, and only secondarily unto men. This request for 
such denial by the ablest and best Baptist clergymen, if practicable, 
was published in the Christian Standard, eighteen months ago. We 
can so tar learn of no reply. We leel assured that no competent 
Christian scholar will publish such explicit denial. We trust that 
our Baptist brethren of the first standing have too much literary 
and philological knowledge, too much of a Christian spirit, and too 
much of an earnest desire to practise baptism precisely according 
to the Bible, to deny that which is so plainly true. If any error or 
sophistry of greater or less importance can be discovered, we request 
they frankly and promptly point it out, and favor us with a copy. 
We will endeavor to give such criticism a respectful attention. If 
our brethren fail to point out such errors, we shall consider our 
views as admitted. They appear to us undeniable. Probably a 
candid public will take the same view\ 

4. We have endeavored to present these evidences with 
kindness and respect for our Baptist brethren. Our brethren have 
too much respect for the Bible either to ask or to practise keeping 



INFANT BAPTISM. 99 



back the truth on this question. If any severity has appeared in 
onr language, we respectfully ask these questions: 

Has not our severity consisted in the precise truth of our state- 
ments, in the logical soundness of our reasonings, and in the 
decisive evidences presented for affusion and infant baptism ? Does 
not our severity consist in the fact that our evidences are indeed 
decisive, that they admit neither denial nor evasion? Have our 
modes of expression been objectionable? May not the public 
understand these decisive evidences as furnishing the reason why 
not one of your ablest and best ministers ventures a reply, even 
after personally proposing such reply? 

5. We make this suggestion: Our brethren understand the 
phrases, they went int) the water, they came out of the water, and 
Jesus was baptized in Jordan, as evidence of immersion. They 
understand baptizo as immerse. Then they very naturally interpret 
the washings and bathings and divers baptisms as, of course, by 
immersion. ]^^ aaman baptized or dipped himself in Jordan. In sober 
fact, these passages were never so intended. Unequivocally we never 
read, by fair construction, that one person went into the water for 
baptism, or came out of the water after baptism. We can, by no 
fair interpretation, read that Jesus was baptized in Jordan, meaning 
immersion. Naaman did not drown himself seven times in Jordan. 
The whole system of immersion for baptism is built upon this 
erroneous, baseless claim. The best Baptist scholars will not deny 
these philological facts. 

6. We repeat our obligations to the work of Dr. Dale. If 
any persons desire more complete and extensive information upon 
some of these questions, they may find it in his larger work. 

7 We remark, that, as we apprehend, the difficulty in our 
reasoning is simply this: It depends so much upon Greek criticism. 
To readers of Greek, it appears to us among the most decisive facts 
found in the Bible. Yet others may fail to place full confidence in 
the argument, especially if their honored ministers, who do read 
Greek, continue to insist upon immersion. Practically, they thus 
tell the world that these statements are not true. We therefore ask 
this favor of our Baptist brethren who are familiar with Greek: 



:00. INFANT BAPTISM. 



Will you carefully and prayerfully search the Greek Testament, 
with a view to these facts, and to this argument? If you can point 
out any errors in these statements, or any so])histry in the argument, 
we hope you will furnish the world with precise and definite infor- 
mation. An earnest religious enthusiasm may lead persons to 
sincerely deny such an argument as a whole. Yet they would not 
venture to deny one sentence in it, specifying the sentence. A small 
oversight on our part, an error of pen or type, especially in the 
figures of quotation, may be incidental to human frailty. But, we 
ask, "WilJ you deny one of these essential facts? If so, please in- 
form the world, definitely^ wfdch fact you deny. A silent course on 
your part, still insisting upon immersion, will remind us of the 
question put by our Saviour to the Jewish leaders: The baptism of 
John, was it from heaven or of men? They replied. We cannot 
tell. We also request this favor of any Baptist brother who may 
attempt to point out errors, in this argument. Please send by mail, 
to the writer, a copy of your criticism. We seek the truth on this 
question. If we are in error, we would like to know it. Convince 
us that immersion is the scriptural mode of baptism, and we are 
ready to practise it. If we have fallen into any errors, we shall 
esteem it a favor to see them explained. For this purpose my name 
and post-office address are given on the title-page. If possible, we 
would see these two sister denominations united. If we could see 
such a cordial union, we should hope for the dawn of the millenial 
day. We can expect such union only by convincing one side or the 
other of their error. If we could see this question scripturally, 
and finally, decided, for either side, we should rejoice. We have 
presented what appears to be the scriptural view. If we could see 
these denominations cordially united, we could adopt the language 
of Simeon: "Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, 
according to thy word; for mine eyes have seen" thy salvation." 



TO EDITORS, CLERGYMEN AND SCHOLARS. 

This pamphlet depends upon the accuracy of its facts and 
arguments, upon the discrimination and love of truth pervading 
the Christian public, and especially upon the blessing of our Saviour 
for its general introduction. We would gladly see this stumbling 
block of division removed. You, brethren, have the same interest 
and the same responsibility in deciding these questions, which 
naturally falls to the writer. We respectfully ask, and earnestly 
entreat, you to give this book a careful examination. So far as its 
facts and arguments commend themselves to your judgment, as 
useful in deciding these divisive questions, we ask you, for the sake 
of the truth, to aid its circulation by a favorable notice. Its use- 
fulness is for the public. Several Baptist brethren proposed to the 
writer a reply. We have called their attention to this proposal. 
But no reply has been received from them. One writer, personally 
a stranger, replied in the Christian Standard, of Cincinnati. 

If these facts and arguments were extensively circulated, our 
Baptist brethren would be under the necessity of either admitting 
or disproving them. Dignified silence would not avail. If this 
pamphlet brings us any pecuniary profit, it will be promptly con- 
tributed to some of our benevolent objects. 



INDEX. 



SirB.JECT. PAGE. 

INTEODUCTION 1 

Underh^ing Principles 2 

Our Design 3 

GENERAL PLAX 4 

CLASSIC BAPTIZO 4 

Examples not Immerse 4 

Examples of Drowning or Killing 15 

Doubtful examples 23 

GENERAL RESULTS 24 

Baptizo NOT ONCE bathing or cleansing 25 

Other Side of the Story 27 

Greek Testament ignores all except suffering 27 
OTHER SENSES THAN IMMERSE NOl^ 

P^IGURATIVE 30 

USAGE OF GREEK CHURCH 36 

THIS GREEK IDIOM ,37 

Limits . . 39 

Uniformity . 41 

Different Localities 42 

Transparent Objecttons ,. 43 

Primitive Meaning of eis 45 

Confirmation of this Idiom 47 



PAGE. 

. ... 57 



BAPTISM OP EUNUCH. 
BAPTISM OF OUR SAVIOUR. 

BAPTISM BY JOHN 

INCIDENTAL EVmENCE 

.^non 



Buried in Baptism 

John Baptized Immense Numbers 

BAPTIZO, AS USED IN GREiK TESTA- 
MENT 62 

Baptize with Holy Spirit and Fire 63 

Baptism of Hands and Couches 65 

Baptized in Red Sea 66 

Divers Baptisms... 67 

Bathings not by Immersion 70 

Priests not Immersed ... 73 

Naaman not Probably Immersed 75 

General facts respecting these Ritual Puri- 
fications 77 

SUMMARY EVIDENCE FOR AFFUSION.. 80 
Early Picture of Baptism 81 

TiNJPjvivTr b^i»'1"IS3j: 82 

General Evidences 83 

Some Explanations 87 

BAPTISM OF JAILER AND HIS FAMILY. 89 

House, Meaning Persons , ..89 

The Adverb panoiki ... 90 

Children of Jailer not Converted 91 

The Participle, believing, is singular ... 93 
The Jailer Only Considered as Converted... 96 

CONCLUSION 96 

Request for Denial, or Explanation of Error. 97 



NEW AND DECISIVE EVIDENCE 



OF THE 



[mode of baptism 



By Eey. ISAAC E. HEATOX 

Fkemokt, JSTebeaska. 



Second Edition, Enlarged. 



I Single Copies, Thirty Cents: Three Dollars Per Dozen. 
For Sale by the xVuthoe; Sent by Mail. 



FREMONT, NEB.:- 

FREMONT TRIBUNE BOOK AND JOB PRINT, 

1 § r 8 . 



% 



01 



? 



ff 






mA^f^^Ky::^ 



A^^AiAi 






•'"■-"?^-y«*mi»fa«5CW* 



iA^AA 



IAA'^^AaAa. ^' 



^iAaAA^^AA^AAAA A AAA/r : 



'^A«AA,' 



a'?:^^a^a: 



.'"^^A" 



AAAoAftAA^flAO^ 






mmf\^^ 



/^/^^r^A, 



/>r^A/^ 



/f^r\f^f^f^A/^Af\f^r\^r\^^^r\^\rs/^ 



,AA%^^Wr^*,'-^^' 



O«-S5«*0«'AOAO^''-,ift' 






>AflA.AAH 






'^A/^A- 



''^A^^fS.R 






If^^rTfrfm 



l^h.r.a^-'^. 



.•■~r\f\lA< 



^^AAaaA'^^^A' 



AA,'?^Sa«,: 



aaAAaa5^A^^.aA^0; 



f\f\r\^^^i^f\f\rAf^h 



.f^TAi 



i^n^fyZ 



^n^AAAA^lig^Maaft^^^^^^ 



.i^^ 



^««^^A^AI^MWAAAAAAAAA!:.<CA^;jf'" 



iA.A'vO^ 



^/nAAAAr\AA 



-.:A^AAa«. 



0mf^^im^.r^^^' 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 

am 



■^ A A e 'Af 1'-' - . • /< 



"mmfmfm 



^r^f^m^^^^^'^'l 



rvrvP^^O^AC 






mmmm^^^^mm}?xs^ 



'^,^^AAnAA^oC^■'^ 



i^AKAAAKKKA^^AKC^'! 












^^mm!f^m^^^ 



^OAA/^^A.AAA^C0^r^A(^AAv 



^s^wtes^ssfe^^^^^ 



nnnn/ 









^^^^^/^A/^/^'^AA 



^A^^ 






AA/^.MA,n/> 



...i^i^^: 



'AAAH' 



%n.^r\A^nmk 



o^-^-^A^or^^K 



:«;o^«^,,«m^^«»*a"?*?"s« ?^^ 



''^A^'^.^''^' 



^'^■a^a.aa.o^c:'::^/?/^,^' 



r^OMA^A/^^^'^' 



^A^^^^^''^^ 



^^.^^^^^' 



^.-^^^A^^fffiS^ 



/«^/«S^^a^^A^ 



^S^«*?«^^ 



'^,;nA/i 






■\^rsR^%rA^'.'^CQf\/^ 






^^aA^^* 



'^«*^^ :«^*M.A5.sj^^^^S^m,??;!- 



/^/^/Illn 



«£gi 












aJ/IA/ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0014665 1197 



irmr 




